Bias, Misinformation and the Paradox of Neutrality
(2008) In Informing Science: the International Journal of An Emerging Transdiscipline 11. p.85-106- Abstract
- What is normally described as bias? A possible definition comprises attempts to distort or mislead to achieve a certain perspective, i.e. subjective descriptions intended to mislead. If designers were able to exclude bias from informing systems, then this would maximize their effectiveness. This implicit conjecture appears to underpin much of the research in our field. However, in our efforts to support the evolution and design of informing systems, the way we think, communicate and conceptualize our efforts clearly influences our comprehension and consequently our agenda for design. Objectivity (an attempt to be neutral or transparent) is usually regarded as exclusion of bias. However, claims for objectivity do not, by definition, include... (More)
- What is normally described as bias? A possible definition comprises attempts to distort or mislead to achieve a certain perspective, i.e. subjective descriptions intended to mislead. If designers were able to exclude bias from informing systems, then this would maximize their effectiveness. This implicit conjecture appears to underpin much of the research in our field. However, in our efforts to support the evolution and design of informing systems, the way we think, communicate and conceptualize our efforts clearly influences our comprehension and consequently our agenda for design. Objectivity (an attempt to be neutral or transparent) is usually regarded as exclusion of bias. However, claims for objectivity do not, by definition, include efforts to inquire into and reflect over subjective values. Attempts to externalize the mindset of the subject do not arise as part of the description. When claims to objectivity are made, this rarely includes any effort to make subjective bias transparent. Instead, objectivity claims may be regarded as a denial of bias. We suggest that bias can be introduced into overt attempts to admit subjectivity. For example, where people are asked to give subjective opinion according to an artificially enforced scale of truthfalsity
(bi-valued logic), they may find themselves coerced into statements of opinion that do not truly reflect the views they might have wished to express. People do not naturally respond to their environment with opinions limited to restricted scales; rather, they tend to use multi-valued, or
para-consistent logic. This paper examines the impact of bias within attempts to establish communicative practice in human activity systems (informing systems). (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1486481
- author
- Bednar, Peter LU and Welch, Christine
- organization
- publishing date
- 2008
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- phenomenology, analysis, multi-valued logic, bias, informing systems, misinformation
- in
- Informing Science: the International Journal of An Emerging Transdiscipline
- volume
- 11
- pages
- 85 - 106
- publisher
- Informing Science Institute
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:58149295401
- ISSN
- 1521-4672
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- d46c5d9e-2680-46d5-b4d8-105120839520 (old id 1486481)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 12:26:31
- date last changed
- 2022-05-19 05:38:00
@article{d46c5d9e-2680-46d5-b4d8-105120839520,
abstract = {{What is normally described as bias? A possible definition comprises attempts to distort or mislead to achieve a certain perspective, i.e. subjective descriptions intended to mislead. If designers were able to exclude bias from informing systems, then this would maximize their effectiveness. This implicit conjecture appears to underpin much of the research in our field. However, in our efforts to support the evolution and design of informing systems, the way we think, communicate and conceptualize our efforts clearly influences our comprehension and consequently our agenda for design. Objectivity (an attempt to be neutral or transparent) is usually regarded as exclusion of bias. However, claims for objectivity do not, by definition, include efforts to inquire into and reflect over subjective values. Attempts to externalize the mindset of the subject do not arise as part of the description. When claims to objectivity are made, this rarely includes any effort to make subjective bias transparent. Instead, objectivity claims may be regarded as a denial of bias. We suggest that bias can be introduced into overt attempts to admit subjectivity. For example, where people are asked to give subjective opinion according to an artificially enforced scale of truthfalsity<br/><br>
(bi-valued logic), they may find themselves coerced into statements of opinion that do not truly reflect the views they might have wished to express. People do not naturally respond to their environment with opinions limited to restricted scales; rather, they tend to use multi-valued, or<br/><br>
para-consistent logic. This paper examines the impact of bias within attempts to establish communicative practice in human activity systems (informing systems).}},
author = {{Bednar, Peter and Welch, Christine}},
issn = {{1521-4672}},
keywords = {{phenomenology; analysis; multi-valued logic; bias; informing systems; misinformation}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{85--106}},
publisher = {{Informing Science Institute}},
series = {{Informing Science: the International Journal of An Emerging Transdiscipline}},
title = {{Bias, Misinformation and the Paradox of Neutrality}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/2925031/1495180}},
volume = {{11}},
year = {{2008}},
}