What is it about?
Part 1 described the major features and manifestations of confirmation bias and the threats to trustworthiness attributed to it. Part 2 describes and critiques three ways in which the threats from that bias have been dismissed. The dismissals considered - but rejected - are: (i) radical scepticism: the concept of ‘bias’ presupposes the possibility of validity/truth – a possibility scorned by radical sceptics, including in some versions of ‘post-modernism’; (ii) consequentialism: explicitly partisan enquiry is advocated – desired research impact trumps commitment to evidence gathering and/or analysis impartiality; and (iii) denial: confirmation bias is not a problem, at least for field-based research, as such research is said to have a built-in immunity against the bias.
Featured Image
Photo by Fares Hamouche on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The bias is widespread in academic, political arena, an everyday discourse and analysis.
Perspectives
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Fooling ourselves and others: confirmation bias and the trustworthiness of qualitative research – Part 2 (cross-examining the dismissals), Journal of Organizational Change Management, August 2021, Emerald,
DOI: 10.1108/jocm-04-2021-0118.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page