In copywriting and academic writing, we are often expected to back up our statements with evidence – which can be as simple as quoting a Wikipedia page to citing a peer-reviewed journal or even interviewing an industry expert. However, the way we go about gathering information often suffers from confirmation bias (or the bad habit of selectively using material that benefits or proves our claims). Why is this such a bad thing and how can we avoid doing it? Join Wordsmith and let’s find out!
We’ve been taught wrong
Why are we so prone to using subjective research? Ray Ravaglia, Forbes contributor and Chief Learning Officer at Opportunity Education, has an interesting take that compares the work processes of lawyers versus scientists.
“The logical form of writing follows the structure of geometric proof. One starts with a hypothesis and advances an argument by citing theorems and drawing logical inferences until one concludes the truth of the hypothesis,” Ravaglia writes. “The same is true in legal writing, where counsel makes a claim and then cites supporting case law to establish the rightness of the claims.”
Although it’s the norm for the majority of written content today, this method of working is objectively flawed for scientific writing right from the start. Since we are assuming the claim to be true (or untrue), we will go about finding research that corroborates this claim… but this hinges on our assumption being correct. If the opposite was the actual truth, then not only would working under false assumptions be a big waste of time, it would also damage our credibility and reputation.
So why do people still gather their research like this? Ravaglia believes academia is to blame – “they (students) are taught to formulate a strong thesis statement and then to find supporting evidence for this thesis,” he explains. “This typically involves selectively skimming texts until a suitably supportive sentence appears and then inserting this sentence into their essay, with the appropriate citation, to support the thesis.” It’s certainly quick and easy to teach, but the process is too rigid and doesn’t offer any contingencies should unexpected research turn up.
The more objective approach
Unlike law, science thrives on experimentation – an objective approach tests each variable fairly so that the scientist can confirm whether or not the hypothesis is true – and Ravaglia points to the writings published in science and economics journals as evidence. “This method of writing does not start at the conclusion and work back toward a justification. Instead, it recognises that one progresses in knowledge through hypothesis and then the testing of the hypothesis.” But how can this line of thinking be applied to general writing?
Let’s start with a hypothesis:
COVID-19 damaged Hong Kong’s economy
While we can’t exactly conduct lab experiments on a statement, we can look up and gather information on it. To ensure that we avoid confirmation bias, here are some handy reminders:
· Google’s first results tend to be the most related and viewed websites – but it doesn’t mean that the first result are the only sources you should use/trust. There’s no harm in checking out some of the latter results, and if multiple sources can echo the same thing, it’s more beneficial for our hypothesis.
· There are two (or more) sides to every argument – just because we have an expectation for a particular outcome, doesn’t discount the other outcomes from being the potential truth. Flip your hypothesis to the other side and gather research on that t as well. Our example would then be “COVID-19 benefitted Hong Kong’s economy”
· Analyse the gathered material critically – as tempting as it may be, resist the urge to accept research at face value. Although a two-bit lawyer may be guilty of doing so, you can rest assured that his/her opposition will try to scrutinise every detail in their presented arguments.
When considering your gathered research, the University of Washington suggests the 5W questions:
o Who is the author? Is he/she an expert or industry leader or is he/she a random person ranting on a blog?
o What points does the article try to give?
o Where is the article published? (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal or Wikipedia?)
o Why does the source exist? To simply be informative? Or are there ulterior motives?
o How does this source compare to other sources?
With AI-writing and ChatGPT becoming more mainstream (for example, some US courts have allowed their use provided that lawyers are upfront about it, and a recent survey found that nearly half of Cambridge students have used ChatGPT during their university studies), the ability to write and select objective sources becomes even more important. This is because AI writers are also prone to cherry-pick their sources to try to prove/disprove the given prompt. “The result will be essays that range from being narrowly focused on demonstrating the truth to inserting caveats that seem strangely out of place to outright fabrication of supporting citations,” Ravaglia warns.
The scientific approach is undeniably slower and more meticulous, and for the many of us who are constantly crunched for time while working, it can feel like having a speed limiter slapped on our engines… but as the old carpentry saying goes: “measure twice, cut once”. If you make a mistake and use flawed research, there’s not much wiggle room once your work gets seen – be it by the customer or our audiences. The extra time spent verifying research is definitely worth it!