What are some examples of biases I should look when analyzing an article for a college class?
October 26, 2010 10:30 PM Subscribe
I'm new to college and need some help with writing critiques of assigned readings. (E.g. In a history or anthro class.) One thing that keeps tripping me up is how to find authour biases. Yes, sometimes one is obvious, but sometimes I feel like I'm just not savvy enough to pick up on any.
Can anyone, perhaps, provide me with a list of biases (self-made or a link to an internet page) to check for when critiquing an article?
This previously asked question about criticial thinking was a little helpful, but i'm looking for more advice very specific to this kind of assignment.
Ideally, I'd like to have a list of authour biases that i can cross-check the article with. Note that I'm not looking for a list of every cognitive bias known to man such as in this wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Also, I realize I can talk to my prof and go to the writing lab, but just wanted to see what you guys would advise.
Thanks!!
You're not going to find a list like that which is of any use to you. The main kind of bias you should be looking for is "confirmation bias". Which is to say that the author has a preconception about a situation, and looks for (and presents to you) evidence which supports that preconception, while ignoring or denigrating evidence to the contrary.
The question you should ask yourself is, "Does this author have an agenda? If so, what is it?"
This isn't going to be something like "an addiction to post-hoc fallacy". It's going to be things like "a belief in the existence of the Noble Savage". (See e.g. Margaret Mead.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:59 PM on October 26, 2010
The question you should ask yourself is, "Does this author have an agenda? If so, what is it?"
This isn't going to be something like "an addiction to post-hoc fallacy". It's going to be things like "a belief in the existence of the Noble Savage". (See e.g. Margaret Mead.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:59 PM on October 26, 2010
Yeah, confirmation bias can be useful to look out for. When critiquing, you could come up with examples that the author ignored, to point out how the author's examples were cherry-picked (even if unconsciously) to support their argument ("If the ban on eating pork was supposedly because of the risk of disease, why then do people in the Middle East eat falafel, which is a known breeding-ground of potentially deadly bacteria?").
Other than that, I'd steer clear of thinking of biases in a strict psychological or "logical error" sense. Instead, try to think how the author's own cultural context frames the way that they see a situation.
They might, for example:
- assume that secular democracy is the highest form of political organisation
- view societies judgementally depending on how emancipated women are
- ditto, but for slaves or the working class (which is generally a Marxist approach - a particular form of bias, just as the previous one was a kind of feminist bias)
- assume that history is teleological, ie progressing towards better & better societies
- or the opposite, that it's all just about selfish humans grabbing what they can for themselves
- frame things in metaphors that don't necessarily apply (eg talking about the "health" of the economy - as if it naturally tends to revert to a "healthy" status)
- interpret the behaviour of past or foreign cultures using concepts only quite new to the modern West, which could not have been in peoples' minds at the time.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:16 PM on October 26, 2010
Other than that, I'd steer clear of thinking of biases in a strict psychological or "logical error" sense. Instead, try to think how the author's own cultural context frames the way that they see a situation.
They might, for example:
- assume that secular democracy is the highest form of political organisation
- view societies judgementally depending on how emancipated women are
- ditto, but for slaves or the working class (which is generally a Marxist approach - a particular form of bias, just as the previous one was a kind of feminist bias)
- assume that history is teleological, ie progressing towards better & better societies
- or the opposite, that it's all just about selfish humans grabbing what they can for themselves
- frame things in metaphors that don't necessarily apply (eg talking about the "health" of the economy - as if it naturally tends to revert to a "healthy" status)
- interpret the behaviour of past or foreign cultures using concepts only quite new to the modern West, which could not have been in peoples' minds at the time.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:16 PM on October 26, 2010
(PS - another approach is to point out that the author *doesn't* take into account, say, feminist issues or the role of class conflict or exploitation. that should get you a long way in college essays, and a lot of the time authors like to pretend as if an entire society is happily pulling in unison, when there are actually deep issues of conflict & force just beneath the surface that they're conveniently turning a blind eye to)
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:28 PM on October 26, 2010
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:28 PM on October 26, 2010
You have the right instincts, i.e. go talk to your prof and go to the writing lab - taking advantage of these resources now will pay off in the long term in a big way. I got this advice in my early undergrad and I wish I'd followed it.
I second what Chocolate Pickle had to say - what assumptions did the author have to make in order to make their argument? If they argue that not all fans of undershirts love Battlestar Galactica, does that argument assume that critics equate undershirt wearing and BSG fandom? Okay, that's not the best example. But - in order to discuss bias, you should look for any assumptions that the author makes, particularly assumptions that underpin their main argument. Practice makes (not perfect but) better - you'll get the hang of catching assumptions the longer you work at this. The best advice I can give you is to discuss what you're reading with classmates/friends: talking over articles always helped me figure out what's obvious, implicit, or assumed.
posted by Bergamot at 11:40 PM on October 26, 2010
I second what Chocolate Pickle had to say - what assumptions did the author have to make in order to make their argument? If they argue that not all fans of undershirts love Battlestar Galactica, does that argument assume that critics equate undershirt wearing and BSG fandom? Okay, that's not the best example. But - in order to discuss bias, you should look for any assumptions that the author makes, particularly assumptions that underpin their main argument. Practice makes (not perfect but) better - you'll get the hang of catching assumptions the longer you work at this. The best advice I can give you is to discuss what you're reading with classmates/friends: talking over articles always helped me figure out what's obvious, implicit, or assumed.
posted by Bergamot at 11:40 PM on October 26, 2010
I've heard it best summarized as, "What does the author want to be true?" You can take any insights to that question and use them to look for alternative explanations or aspects and/or data they hadn't considered or just plain didn't include.
posted by rhizome at 12:04 AM on October 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 12:04 AM on October 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Great answers. Very helpful. I'm already picking up on things in the article that I'm currently analyzing that I couldn't see before posting. Thanks, guys!!
posted by oceanview at 12:09 AM on October 27, 2010
posted by oceanview at 12:09 AM on October 27, 2010
It is much easier to understand where someone is coming from after you read their bio.
Most of the time I look for two or three things that most academics slip up on. Confirmation Bias is really common. Not really a Bias but look for causation vs. Correlation problems they often lead to what the confirmation bias is.
Most people think that the field they have chosen is the best way to understand and fix a problem. Like in political science, I have had professors explain why youth riots are always the fault of the government and how the problems of stem cell research are not scientific but a lack of government funding. This also falls under confirmation bias.
Really you need to ask why the author would want you to arrive at the same decision. There is no list that would be helpful, just play detective and use margin notes.
posted by Felex at 12:43 AM on October 27, 2010
Most of the time I look for two or three things that most academics slip up on. Confirmation Bias is really common. Not really a Bias but look for causation vs. Correlation problems they often lead to what the confirmation bias is.
Most people think that the field they have chosen is the best way to understand and fix a problem. Like in political science, I have had professors explain why youth riots are always the fault of the government and how the problems of stem cell research are not scientific but a lack of government funding. This also falls under confirmation bias.
Really you need to ask why the author would want you to arrive at the same decision. There is no list that would be helpful, just play detective and use margin notes.
posted by Felex at 12:43 AM on October 27, 2010
Hello! I'm an MA student and a TA for these types of assignments.
I think the easiest way to go about this was the method my teacher taught me back in high school, and which I modified to suit my needs as time went by: PAMS(B).
Purpose: why'd he write this? If you figure out this question, you're well on your way to finding out his bias. You may only figure this out after you figure out everything else, or it could be the first thing you see. Read prefaces, forewords, intros, conclusions, and even author dedications.
Author: who wrote it? Know their bio.
Method: How did they do the research? Is it a scientific experiment involving bacteria in petri dishes? Is it a review of secondary literature? Is it a study of 18th century documents?
Sources-Scholarship: What sources are included? (This relates to Method). Where are they in the scholarship (in history: where are they in the historiography)? Which scholars do they like? Which scholars do they hate? If they're in history: are they an intellectual historian? A social historian? A microhistorian? When were they writing: immediately after the event, or centuries after? What other scholars were writing at the time?
All of that = Bias. Their purpose will necessarily distort the information: as a professor I know puts it, "Scholarship is an act of violence on the data." Their distortion of the data reveals their bias.
The author's life will often inform their bias. The classic version of this is a Southern historian writing right after the Civil War. But you have to be careful: that Southern Historian could be a dissident, and that will factor into their bias.
Method will affect their bias. If they're only addressing sources from a specific region, and yet they claim to be dealing with a broader area, there's something hinky going on and they might be distorting facts (deliberately or not). This also ties into things like bad statistics, bad data-gathering, etc.
Sources-Scholarship: often the best way to find bias is by comparing it to other works on the same general topic. If you don't know what they're talking about, 1 article seems authoritative; 2 articles with different approaches will illuminate the the biases and the decisions made by both scholars.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 1:02 AM on October 27, 2010 [9 favorites]
I think the easiest way to go about this was the method my teacher taught me back in high school, and which I modified to suit my needs as time went by: PAMS(B).
Purpose: why'd he write this? If you figure out this question, you're well on your way to finding out his bias. You may only figure this out after you figure out everything else, or it could be the first thing you see. Read prefaces, forewords, intros, conclusions, and even author dedications.
Author: who wrote it? Know their bio.
Method: How did they do the research? Is it a scientific experiment involving bacteria in petri dishes? Is it a review of secondary literature? Is it a study of 18th century documents?
Sources-Scholarship: What sources are included? (This relates to Method). Where are they in the scholarship (in history: where are they in the historiography)? Which scholars do they like? Which scholars do they hate? If they're in history: are they an intellectual historian? A social historian? A microhistorian? When were they writing: immediately after the event, or centuries after? What other scholars were writing at the time?
All of that = Bias. Their purpose will necessarily distort the information: as a professor I know puts it, "Scholarship is an act of violence on the data." Their distortion of the data reveals their bias.
The author's life will often inform their bias. The classic version of this is a Southern historian writing right after the Civil War. But you have to be careful: that Southern Historian could be a dissident, and that will factor into their bias.
Method will affect their bias. If they're only addressing sources from a specific region, and yet they claim to be dealing with a broader area, there's something hinky going on and they might be distorting facts (deliberately or not). This also ties into things like bad statistics, bad data-gathering, etc.
Sources-Scholarship: often the best way to find bias is by comparing it to other works on the same general topic. If you don't know what they're talking about, 1 article seems authoritative; 2 articles with different approaches will illuminate the the biases and the decisions made by both scholars.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 1:02 AM on October 27, 2010 [9 favorites]
When I was teaching students in introductory liberal arts and social science college classes, I encouraged them to keep in mind the similarities and differences between knowing and believing as well as facts, inferences and judgements. Is the author presenting something as fact when it is more of a judgement? Is the author stating a belief as if it is knowledge? What are the basis for the author's inferences (here's a good place to uncover "bias")? How did the author come to know the facts that he or she presents? Is this a suitable method? What inferences and/or judgements have you made based on the evidence (facts) presented in the passage? And so on. . ..
posted by Pineapplicious at 6:45 AM on October 27, 2010
posted by Pineapplicious at 6:45 AM on October 27, 2010
Any form of value judgement about anything is evidence of bias.
It's likely that the author has is biased towards the subject of the article (as opposed to the specific talking point). For example, an article on some narrow issue related to the working class is worth examining for a bias in favour of the working class.
An article with a specific narrow geographic purview may be ignoring some kind of relevant global political issue. If the author only considers a short period of time, then perhaps they are ignoring important issues that would be apparent with a longer perspective. Maybe they only consider westerners, white people, men, powerful people, or middle class people. If you can look at a wider perspective than the article does, perhaps you can spot some holes.
If you learn more about different political systems you might find it easier to spot bias in favour of a particular political system.
posted by emilyw at 7:21 AM on October 27, 2010
It's likely that the author has is biased towards the subject of the article (as opposed to the specific talking point). For example, an article on some narrow issue related to the working class is worth examining for a bias in favour of the working class.
An article with a specific narrow geographic purview may be ignoring some kind of relevant global political issue. If the author only considers a short period of time, then perhaps they are ignoring important issues that would be apparent with a longer perspective. Maybe they only consider westerners, white people, men, powerful people, or middle class people. If you can look at a wider perspective than the article does, perhaps you can spot some holes.
If you learn more about different political systems you might find it easier to spot bias in favour of a particular political system.
posted by emilyw at 7:21 AM on October 27, 2010
If you want to look at assumptions the author makes--which can indicate bias in his or her thinking--it helps to outline the author's arguments. It's easier to see suppressed propositions, leaps in logic, etc that way.
posted by lockestockbarrel at 7:57 AM on October 27, 2010
posted by lockestockbarrel at 7:57 AM on October 27, 2010
Sometimes, the reason it's hard to find an author's biases are because you share them. As you engage in this kind of criticism, a list you might want to self-generate is a list of your own biases -- times when your classmate says, "the author assumes X", and you think, "gosh, I didn't even realize this was an assumption!"
The other reason it may be hard to find an author's biases are if they are "privileged"; that is, if they are part of the dominant narrative of your culture. This can be true even if you don't share those biases; it can be easy to forget to question them, or to not see how they underlie the argument being made.
posted by endless_forms at 8:49 AM on October 27, 2010
The other reason it may be hard to find an author's biases are if they are "privileged"; that is, if they are part of the dominant narrative of your culture. This can be true even if you don't share those biases; it can be easy to forget to question them, or to not see how they underlie the argument being made.
posted by endless_forms at 8:49 AM on October 27, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by oceanview at 10:32 PM on October 26, 2010