I have a list of personal biases and prejudices a yard long (anyone who calls football 'footie' can go straight to the top of the list for a start), but acknowledging and addressing bias in published research is a more serious issue.
Sometimes when I'm trying to explain concepts like evidence based practice or the nature of academic writing then I invent examples. Other times real world examples of an issue land in my lap and they're so perfect that all I have to do is pass it on. So here's an example of the thorny issue of subjectivity (bias?) and academic report writing.
A report was published this week by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM). If you want to read it, it's here. It's an investigation of whether immigrants are a financial drain on society or good for the economy.That's somewhat simplistic (false binary opposition social work first years?!?), but hopefully you take my point. It broadly decided that immigration was a positive economic factor. So far, so unremarkable.
However, on the same day Migration Watch (whose website is here) commented on the CReAM report as well as the new Office for National Statistics report on population (which you can read here) and recommended immediate curbs on immigration. Admittedly Migration Watch do say this sort of thing a lot, but it really struck me this time due to the timing of both statements.
Almost as if it was deliberate.
Or is that just the bias of a Guardian-reading, soft arsed liberal shining brightly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment