Most people like to believe that they consistently make fair judgements and statements, free of bias and prejudgment. However, as psychological
research has evidenced, time and time again, no one is immune
from cognitive bias. Everyone would benefit from becoming more aware of these biases; but for professional researchers, this is absolutely imperative.
Of course, it is the researcher’s responsibility to be aware of, and (where possible) to mitigate the effect of any known biases, to gather an honest read on feelings and opinions. This is important to achieve good quality feedback, to provide reasonable and gainful orientation and make clear and appropriate client recommendations.
Beyond the opportunity to mitigate or reduce bias effects, we might seek to harness these natural tendencies for the benefits of our research. It is also important to remember that we, as researchers, now live in an age where we are effectively bargaining for people’s time and attention against a variety of competing sources. Hence, where appropriate and ethical, we might further consider opportunities to activate or control these biases, to enhance levels of research commitment and motivation.
There are, quite literally, hundreds of different types of bias one might consider,
so here we will focus on those with the clearest and most direct implications
for effective online research community task design and moderation, and the
ones that might generate the greatest client value.
Clients can occasionally arrive with a very preconceived notion of what it takes to explore a particular topic or theme, or of the particular theme that they think needs exploring. This typically involves over-reliance on a single type of research methodology or a narrow focus on a set of questions that might confirm expectations while missing out relevant disconfirming information.
This refers to the impact on the nature and quality of feedback that researchers obtain from participants based on the order in which they introduce activities and questions.
This describes the impulse to give when we receive. People feel much more inclined to share information about themselves if you first share information about yourself; if you give them something.
This refers to the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours. In general people want to please others. We all have a natural tendency to discuss (i.e. promote) aspects of our lives and relationships in a positive light.
This is the tendency to harmonise in agreement when participants engage in group conversations. Consensus bias is particularly likely to occur in circumstances that are less familiar, where people look to the behaviour of others and in turn judge how they might themselves behave.
While bias is an inevitable part of human cognitive functioning and it makes for
much better research practice if researchers are aware of likely biases and can
think of creative ways to minimise or, indeed, harness them in their favour.
Online research provides a way to address different sources of bias.
Methods can be triangulated in a single online environment, with further
scope to sequence and mix private and social activities, and set tasks as
biased or unbiased.
In addition, online research conducted asynchronously enables relationships
to develop over time. This has inherent risks in terms of generating social
desirability, but it can also make for much better evidence and insight, because reciprocity can be actively encouraged.