so i'm biased now?

[the last donut of the night]

i have this research paper on the latest israeli occupation (operation cast lead) due soon. we had to hand in to the teacher all the research we had up to that point. since i mentioned socialistworker.org, now i'm fucking biased?
she told me to get 'right-wing perspectives', such as the wall street journal and the jerusalem post. bullshit

[Искра]

and what's problem to get wall street juneral and criticize it from socialistworker.org's perspective?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

this is research, not journalism
you don't have to give opposing viewpoints any consideration if you don't want to
everyone is biased
everyone speaks from his/her own perspective
tell your teacher that you have no pretentions of being unbiased and that you unapologetically write from a working-class point of view

[ls]

It's shit but if you have to show what you studied, just make a passing mention to them right-wing sources, mention some bollocks statistics from them (which actually help your argument against Israel) and then yeah, what can they say.

[Pavlov's House Party]

i used "the origins of family, private property and the state" by engels as a source for my anthropology term paper and the teacher told me to find unbiased sources:crying:

[the last donut of the night]

yeah, i agree with you homies. but what i have to do is to get right-wing shit and then refute it with leftist reality

[Il Medico]

Hmm. I never had this problem. I cited for my senior project (like a year long term paper) Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. Perhaps I wasn't slapped with the bias stick cause my paper was on socialism. :D

[Sasha]

get some stuff from http://www.haaretz.com/
thats as rightwing as you have to go before you enter the realm of borderline-fascism

[Invincible Summer]

i have this research paper on the latest israeli occupation (operation cast lead) due soon. we had to hand in to the teacher all the research we had up to that point. since i mentioned socialistworker.org, now i'm fucking biased?
she told me to get 'right-wing perspectives', such as the wall street journal and the jerusalem post. bullshit

This wouldn't happen to be a Poli Sci paper, would it? I remember I used an article from the International Socialist Review or something (which was a pretty unbiased article, and the portion I used was just statistics), and my prof told me I was using a biased source.


I smelled a reactionary right away and then I kicked her fascist ass to the gulags

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

well, you always have to be cautious when using any non-scholarly source, innit?

[BobKKKindle$]

I've been criticized for using New Left Review before, which is a serious academic journal...

[Tyrlop]

i don't get this, what does baised mean?

[Sasha]

i don't get this, what does baised mean?

sigh.... you do know there is such a thing as an (on-line) dictionary?


bi⋅as

 http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/B02/B0298200) /ˈbaɪhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəs/ http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi⋅ased, bi⋅as⋅ing or (especially Britishhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) bi⋅assed, bi⋅as⋅sing. –noun 1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric. 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. 3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure. 4. Lawn Bowling. a. a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl. b. the curved course made by such a ball when rolled. 5. Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation. 6. a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.
–adjective 7. cut, set, folded, etc., diagonally: This material requires a bias cut.
–adverb 8. in a diagonal manner; obliquely; slantingly: to cut material bias.
–verb (used with object) 9. to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly: a tearful plea designed to bias the jury. 10. Electronics. to apply a steady voltage or current to (the input of an active device).
—Idiom 11. on the bias, a. in the diagonal direction of the cloth. b. out of line; slanting.
[B]Origin:
1520–30; < MF biais oblique < OPr, prob. < VL *(e)bigassius < Gk epikársios oblique, equiv. to epi- epi- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epi-&db=luna) + -karsios obliquehttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

Synonyms:
2. predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity; bent, leaning. Bias, prejudice mean a strong inclination of the mind or a preconceived opinion about something or someone. A bias may be favorable or unfavorable: bias in favor of or against an idea. Prejudice implies a preformed judgment even more unreasoning than bias, and usually implies an unfavorable opinion: prejudice against a race. 9. predispose, bend, incline, dispose.


Antonyms:
2. impartiality.

or to keep it short:


–adjective having or showing bias or prejudice: They gave us a biased report on immigration trends.

Also, especially British, biassed.

[Bilan]

i have this research paper on the latest israeli occupation (operation cast lead) due soon. we had to hand in to the teacher all the research we had up to that point. since i mentioned socialistworker.org, now i'm fucking biased?
she told me to get 'right-wing perspectives', such as the wall street journal and the jerusalem post. bullshit

...And?
This is a research paper. You can't just argue one side of it without even analysing or considering the other points of view. That is obvious bias, and reflects that you neglected other perspective, and just propagated your own.
It's got nothing to do with her being bourgeois, and everything to do with you not doing a thorough job.
Read right wing journals. If they're so full of shit, then prove it. That's the point of it.

[An archist]

yeah, i agree with you homies. but what i have to do is to get right-wing shit and then refute it with leftist reality
Indeed, so what's the problem?

[JazzRemington]

...And?
This is a research paper. You can't just argue one side of it without even analysing or considering the other points of view. That is obvious bias, and reflects that you neglected other perspective, and just propagated your own.
It's got nothing to do with her being bourgeois, and everything to do with you not doing a thorough job.
Read right wing journals. If they're so full of shit, then prove it. That's the point of it.

This.

Although I'm not sure about how the paper was written, usually research papers have a section dedicated to just presenting the information in as neutral or bias-free as possible and a discussion section that presents one's analysis of the information.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

there's no such thing as neutrality

[JazzRemington]

there's no such thing as neutrality

I'm curious, what part of "as neutral or as bias-free as possible"do you not understand? If you want to get a paper published in a historical journal, or any journal for that matter, you have to do this regardless of whether or not you think neutrality is possible. If all you do is quote left-wing or Marxist literature and ignore any other types of literature you are not doing a research paper but just a summation of a particular viewpoint.

[Invincible Summer]

I've been criticized for using New Left Review before, which is a serious academic journal...
That's the one I used

[ComradeMan]

Hang on a minute. When doing objective research you have to get all points of view in otherwise you will always be accused of being subjective. It's not easy, as we are all biased in one way or another. How about this- the threefold dialects

Thesis- left point of view with your sources.
Antithesis- right point of view with the materials suggested.
Synthesis- your conclusion in which you evaluate and thus come to a point of view.

[Bilan]

there's no such thing as neutrality

That doesn't mean you go all out and just write an evidently bias paper, does it?

[Bright Banana Beard]

That doesn't mean you go all out and just write an evidently bias paper, does it?
No, it does not.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm curious, what part of "as neutral or as bias-free as possible"do you not understand? If you want to get a paper published in a historical journal, or any journal for that matter, you have to do this regardless of whether or not you think neutrality is possible. If all you do is quote left-wing or Marxist literature and ignore any other types of literature you are not doing a research paper but just a summation of a particular viewpoint.

bullshit
Your academic work can be reduced to a summation of a collection of sources purely on the grounds that you don't present all viable viewpoints?
What the fuck are you talking about?

[JazzRemington]

bullshit
Your academic work can be reduced to a summation of a collection of sources purely on the grounds that you don't present all viable viewpoints?
What the fuck are you talking about?

Nearly all research articles are "summation[s] of a collection of sources." My point is that by only using particular sources that present one type of analysis (regardless of what it is) you are not doing anywhere near research but just presenting a summary of a particular view point. The point of doing research is to use as many primary sources as possible. Failing that, one has to use as wide a variety of secondary sources as possible. You have to get as objective or balanced as possible by analysing as wide variety of sources as possible. If not, then you are effectively only presenting a summary of a particular view point. That is bias. Period.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nearly all research articles are "summation[s] of a collection of sources."

I do believe most seek to present an original thesis.


You have to get as objective or balanced as possible by analysing as wide variety of sources as possible. If not, then you are effectively only presenting a summary of a particular view point. That is bias. Period.He's researching a topic with a vast amount of primary and secondary sources. Like you said, he should first look into the primary sources. Why should he be obligated to include as a secondary source the reports of the haute bourgeois press?

[RHIZOMES]

Pretty much nearly every essay I've done this year has been biased towards the left-wing. I even cited someone from my own party (an academic) in one of them. :lol:

The joys of avoiding my Uni's PolSci department... Where "unbiased" means psuedo-universalistic liberalism

[Bilan]

I do believe most seek to present an original thesis.

He's researching a topic with a vast amount of primary and secondary sources. Like you said, he should first look into the primary sources. Why should he be obligated to include as a secondary source the reports of the haute bourgeois press?

To give the paper more depth and more perspective?
Self evident?

[JazzRemington]

I do believe most seek to present an original thesis.

A lot do, but a lot of research papers (especially literature reviews) also summarize existing primary literature in order to have something to which to apply an analysis.


He's researching a topic with a vast amount of primary and secondary sources. Like you said, he should first look into the primary sources. Why should he be obligated to include as a secondary source the reports of the haute bourgeois press?

In this case, one uses secondary sources in order to know how other people are looking at his topic so one can provide a stronger argument for his or her thesis by acknowledging their viewpoint and critiquing it. It's the same reason why you would debate someone with a different set of beliefs than you: to find out what they think, why they think that, and to be able to formulate a stronger argument for your view point.

[Wanted Man]

...And?
This is a research paper. You can't just argue one side of it without even analysing or considering the other points of view. That is obvious bias, and reflects that you neglected other perspective, and just propagated your own.
It's got nothing to do with her being bourgeois, and everything to do with you not doing a thorough job.
Read right wing journals. If they're so full of shit, then prove it. That's the point of it.

Agreed. This is true for all subjects, no matter if it's an essay, research, or something else. If you're going to write about class struggle, you can't just have a works-cited list consisting of the Socialist Worker, the Morning Star, the IWW and Class War. This is not because of some illusion that every person is or should be "objective", or trying to showcase every single opinion that exists on the subject; that would be impossible.

However, anything you write should come across as reasonable and fair, and the way you do your research is very important in this. Your stated beliefs, slanted language (language that contains value judgments), biased tone, biased choice of evidence, and biased choice of experts may all negatively affect a critical reader's response to your writing. Of course, a reader's own bias may also affect their response, but I can't tell if this is the case with your teacher.

@ OP: I don't know what other sources you used, but if they are also the Socialist Worker or similar, or if you ignore information that does not support your case, then your information may be slanted. Again, I don't know your exact circumstances, but if your assignment allows room for it, you can devote attention to opposing arguments. You can refute them, or you can weigh their strengths and weaknesses before presenting your own argument.

Do you use any kind of guide or handbook to academic writing? It can be useful.

[the last donut of the night]

chill, everybody

what i'm doing now is getting sources from IDF commanders, right-wing papers, and the like to prove my point

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'd like to see how many non leftist researchers cite the Socialist Worker when writting about Palestine and Israel

[Robocommie]

I'd like to see how many non leftist researchers cite the Socialist Worker when writting about Palestine and Israel

Largely that's going to be due to the fact that capitalism is the dominant mode. If you want to present a strong Leftist thesis, you're going to have to dispute the claims of capitalists who claim otherwise, since they're the ones in power, or in vogue, or what have you.

And why worry about it? If the facts support us we have nothing to complain about, it gives us the opportunity to show how even right wing sources support our argument.

[which doctor]

The biased/unbiased argument is really close to the objective/subjective one. What words like objective and unbiased typically signify is allegiance to the dominant mode of thought while words like biased and subjective get leveled at people for reasons relating to their deviance.

I think Adorno puts this better than I:

Fear-mongering does not apply. – What the truth might objectively be, remains difficult enough to discern, but when dealing with human beings one should not allow oneself to be terrorized by this. There are criteria there, which seem satisfying at first. One of the most reliable is the reproach that an expression is “too subjective.” If this is laid down with that indignation, which echoes with the furious harmony of all reasonable people, then one has reason to be satisfied with oneself for a couple of seconds. The concepts of what is subjective and what is objective have been completely inverted. Objective means the non-controversial side of the phenomenon [Erscheinung], its unquestioned imprint, taken as it is, the facade constructed out of classified data, therefore the subjective; and they call subjective, whatever breaks through such, emerging out of the specific experience of the thing, divesting itself of prejudged convention and setting the relation to the object in place of the majority decision concerning such, which they cannot even see, let alone think – therefore, what is objective. How vacuous the formal objection to subjective relativity is, can be observed in its own actual field, that of aesthetic judgments. Those who have subjected themselves in earnest, out of the energy of their precise reaction, to the discipline of a work of art, to the compulsion of its shape, of its immanent law of form, find the objection against what is merely subjective in their experience dissolving like a threadbare appearance [Schein], and every step they take further into the matter, by virtue of their extreme subjective innervation, has incomparably greater objective power than comprehensive and much-vindicated conceptual formations, such as that of “style,” whose scientific claim comes at the cost of such experience. This is doubly true in the era of positivism and of the culture-industry, whose objectivity is calculated by administrating subjects. In contrast to this, reason has fled completely into eyeless [fensterlos] idiosyncrasy, which the caprice of the power-brokers castigates as caprice, because they want the powerlessness of subjects, out of fear of the objectivity, which alone is sublated in these subjects.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A lot do, but a lot of research papers (especially literature reviews) also summarize existing primary literature in order to have something to which to apply an analysis.

threby formulating an original thesis
not a summation

[JazzRemington]

threby formulating an original thesis
not a summation

Did you even read what I wrote? I said the literature review section of a research article summarizes the information. The summation of existing literature and the application of theses are two different things. Literature reviews in general do not apply any theses beyond summarizing, critically appraising, and discussing how the pieces of literature relate to one another.

[Invader Zim]

I do believe most seek to present an original thesis.

He's researching a topic with a vast amount of primary and secondary sources. Like you said, he should first look into the primary sources. Why should he be obligated to include as a secondary source the reports of the haute bourgeois press?

This strikes me as a failure to grasp the nature of research, at least from my perspective as a person trying to conduct historical research. As you yourself noted, most people try to present an origional thesis, or alternatively test an existing thesis against different sources not previously considered. Naturally that requires a significant depth of secondary reading to establish just what has been written and where it relates to your project. After all how can you claim to be producing origional research if you haven't read sufficently?

Furthermore nobody expects a researcher to read every primary source that exists on the vast majority of topics, such an endevour would in a great many cases simply take too long to be practical. So naturally it is a fair expectation that you evaluate other peoples surveys on the topic and incorporate their findings into your own view. Not to do so would be nothing short of negligence.

As for the topic in hand, of course the poster is mistaken to not have at least considered alternative view points. It is nothing short of shoddy research not to do so. How can you be sure that their conclusions are faulty if you haven't even considered them? Furthermore if you do considered them faulty then you should be able to point out why, and where they are contradicted by the evidence at your disposal and how that evidence supports your conclusions.