Introduction

Neutral, impartial, objective, unbiased. These are all adjectives that many people use to describe the ideal information resource and the ideal library. It is common to argue that librarians, journalists, researchers, etc. should not be biased in favor of a political opinion, a moral stance, a group of people (categorized by socioeconomic class, ability, race, and so on), or any number of other considerations. Information should be fact-based, without an agenda.

In theory, neutrality seems like a good goal. Whether we are conducting academic research, keeping up with current events, or making personal medical decisions, we want unbiased sources that offer real evidence without prioritizing anyone’s preexisting opinions. We want “the truth.”

The reality of our information landscape is that some sources are better than others for most purposes. These sources offer evidence-based advice, real-world data, rigorously fact-checked news, and other helpful information from experts who know what they’re doing. This week, we’ve discussed basic strategies to help you decide whether a specific article, website, video, etc. is one of these high-quality sources.

However…

It is also true that when people say neutral, what they often mean is how we already do things or what we already “know.” Neutral information can often mean information produced by, and for, people in positions of privilege in academia or the world at large, whether that is due to wealth, ability, race, gender/sexuality, nationality, etc. or a combination of factors.

This statement may seem extreme. Academic research often relies on hard data – surely numbers are as neutral as it gets? Surely scholars, who follow rigorous methods and mean well, would produce reliable, unbiased research that applies to everyone?

An in-depth exploration of “neutrality,” privilege, and bias in the worlds of libraries, news, research, etc. would be deeply complex and beyond the scope of this course. Our goal below is to peek behind the curtain of so-called neutral information – not to argue that well-done research or other sources are not useful, but instead to advocate for a more inclusive approach to which perspectives “count.”

The Single Story

The talk below, from Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, introduces the “danger of a single story.” While she does not reference academic research, the main points are still relevant: that it can be difficult to identify when our own perspectives are limited, that globally prominent perspectives (i.e., Western) might not be universal, and that lifting unheard voices makes this world a richer, kinder place (run time: 19:17).

The Single Story in Academic Research

As we mentioned above, critiquing the idea of “neutrality” in academic research is a complex endeavor. For beginner researchers, let’s start by examining what the “single story” can look like in research data and analysis.

Either conscious or unconscious bias can influence:

• who is able to do research
• what research topics get funded
• what types of people/groups are “worth” studying

Many times, the complicated nature of scholarship can produce results that appear “neutral” or “universal” to the untrained eye, but have a more limited scope upon closer inspection.

This concept can be examined in different ways depending on your field of study. For now, let’s look at an example of (often unintended) bias in psychological research. Watch the video below for an introduction to WEIRD research and its implications for generalizing study results (run time: 4:36):

Pointing out a lack of inclusivity in research participants is NOT to suggest that research on young, white, male, American college students isn’t worth doing, or that those results aren’t important. We simply mean that research on other groups is also important, because the results of studies on white, healthy men don’t always apply to everyone else. And, this oversight can have real consequences – in fields like medicine, for example, where a historical lack of women in clinical trials has resulted in issues like improper medication dosages or a lack of awareness of different disease/condition symptoms.