I was just wondering why it was so important to consider a source's biases when writing a research paper?
Printable View
I was just wondering why it was so important to consider a source's biases when writing a research paper?
A research paper should be completely objective.
This is easier to explain with an example: Suppose you are writing a paper about the Nazi Germany, and you use a speech by Adolf Hitler as a source. The source itself is useful because it is a primary source, however it is not going to be objective and will distort the paper if you rely on it solely for the research of your paper.....anyway I'll shut up now and let someone far better at explaining things give you a fuller answer.
Why shut up, Kilted. You're correct. I think you should give the context of a source, especially if he's got a certain agenda.
if your research paper is in Humanities or Social Sciences/History etc... you'll find that there are often dozens of different theories on a subject. so if you want to use information from different sources, you need to be aware of the author's overall theoretical background. the bits and pieces you quote don't stand for themselves but are connected with a whole mess of basic assumptions and implications.
example: Chomsky states that humans need to have an inborn language capacity because children are able to pick up any language. He proves this by saying that all languages share certain universal features. his basic assumption being that these universal features really exist. ... so his whole theory rests on assumptions like these.
however, other linguists have bothered to investigate universals in detail and have found that it is impossible to say whether they exist or not. SO what Chomsky asserted was not an objective FACT but merely an assumption and in term papers you need to make clear whether something is a 'fact' (if there are any at all) or an assumption and how scholars came to make these assumptions.
er, I hope it helps? do you want me to think up a less sophisticated example?
sleepywitch
You are absolutely correct. The only problem is that one doesn't always know what is in the relm of disputed issue and what is not. I've seen people assert Chomsky's theory as a fact and I've seen others assert the opposing theory as a fact. Either each have made up their minds or are ignorant of the dispute. For things like this, i don't ususally have a too much of a problem. I ususally have issues when critics assert statements with political connotations. For instance it drives me crazy when people cite Marxian interpretations of literature. Marx was wrong on economics, wrong on history, but we're going to use to interpret literature. Why? I can only assume political agenda. In this day anyone that still believes in Marxism is living in the distant, distant past.
hehe, there we go :) whether Marx was totally wrong is in fact a contested issue, at least in my part of the world it is :) I'm beginning to think it's a good idea we're not allowed to discuss politics on this forum, otherwise I'd have to go off doing research on the pros and cons of Marxism now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
girlongixxer I'm glad Virgil has brought up the word "agenda" because one of the reasons why we need to be aware of sources' biases is that all authors follow some agenda (political, social, intellectual, whatever). they all work within some framework or other, so their findings are not "the truth" but one out of many models of reality. They all try to build a model of reality because reality itself is too complex to understand. So they simplify it and base their simplifications on certain assumptions, i.e. they approach reality from a certain angle and look for building blocks for their model that fit in with their assumptions.
For example, a Lit scholar from France might think that life is full of nasty things like adultery, so to write a 'realistic' book means to describe these nasty things and give the book an unhappy ending.
Now English books tend to have happy endings. So the French scholar would call them 'unrealistic'.
An English guy on the other hand, might think that the French are morally depraved and refuse to see the bright side of life. He would regard a happy ending as 'realistic'.
So we end up with two meanigns of the word 'realistic'. That is, when you read 'realistic' in a source, you need to find out what is meant by this word in this particular instance.
er, hehe, i hope that was a better example :)
- SleepyWitch, pedantic student tutor
I'm English and I'm morally depraved - I would hate to think that made me French.
hahah, good for you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumbleguts
it was only an example :)
Why consider biases? Why NOT? Biases are one of the foremost sources of documentational limitation. You'd be laughed out of every decent school of debate on the planet if you tried to use your newspaper's editorial section as scholarly source material.
Would they be the same sort of issues that I have when, in the face of over forty years of astute critical theory, some people still cling to the mistaken belief that there is such a thing as a politically neutral, objective act of interpretation? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
In this day and age, anyone who still believes in such notions is living in the increasingly distant past. :D
hey Unnamable I'm beginning to like you :) from something you said in another thread i somehow got the impression you believed in 'neutral', 'objective' interpretation... must have got you wrong...
by the way, what's become of the person who started this thread? is he/she interested in our bits of wisdom at all, or has he/she disappeared to outer space and is laughing at us from a safe distance?
Where do I begin? Some thoughts:Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I can’t understand why it’s taken you until now to begin to like me. I’m adorable. Getting me wrong is what most people do – it’s far easier than facing the possibility that I might be right.
I assumed your “Apprentice to the Master” referred to the way you see yourself in relation to me. I also assumed that someone who calls herself SleepyWitch would be warty, old and exhibit a tendency to dabble in the black arts.
I firmly believe that all interpretations are biased inasmuch as they offer a reading of ‘reality’ that is based on certain assumptions (see a previous argument with Mr. V about ‘a disinterested fact’, post #115 on the Language as Control thread http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15115).
PS I thought Coventry was twinned with Dresden.
hehe, nope I'm Apprentice to another Master, not to you I'm afraid...
yep, Cov is twinned with Dresden... it says Cov/Erlangen in my profile because I'm from Erlangen, Germany, but lived in Cov for a year. i got registered when i was over there and have been to lazy to change my profile so far... besides, i wanna go back to England some day, so i might just as well leave it there as a reminder
Can anyone answer the above question?Quote:
Originally Posted by girlongixxer
I could, but it would only be my biased opinion. I have a feeling you need something more objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanja43