6.5 Bias in Scholarly Sources

Sometimes you’ll find a research study in a scholarly journal. Just because it is research and was published in a scholarly publication doesn’t mean bias might not be present. Here are a couple of things to think about that pertain specifically to scholarly research studies that can support your assessment of the sources you find:

• Funding bias: Some research is funded by specific organizations. That doesn’t mean the research is of poor quality, but there may be some bias if the study favors its financial supporters. One example might be an article on a specific medication where a pharmaceutical company funded the study. Bias could include over-emphasizing desired results or suppressing undesired data.
• Selection bias occurs when study participants do not represent the general population, either through the selective inclusion or exclusion of study participants. For example, if a study focuses on the impacts of a healthy diet on children with Type 2 diabetes, but only includes girls between the ages of nine and 12 years old living in California, the results may not be applicable to the entire population.
• Media bias refers to the selective coverage of stories and perspectives in the media, often characterized by the omission of certain stories or interpretations. An example might be an article that included primarily conservative or liberal news outlets or sensational stories. Citing The Epoch Times will probably present a different perspective than citing The New York Times. In science reporting, bias emphasizes views not supported by evidence.

Finally, there could be bias in the literature review. A study typically includes a literature review, which presents a comprehensive overview of current knowledge on a specific topic. If the author excludes information, intentionally or unintentionally, this could create a distorted view of an issue.

Examples of Bias

Here are a few examples of bias—one obvious and one less so. First, look at a more straightforward example: the Sierra Club website [Website]. A cursory glance clearly reveals that they are an environmentalist group. You will notice phrases like “We champion solutions to the climate crisis” and “We fight for environmental and social justice” on their homepage. You can probably guess their stance on issues such as oil and gas, fracking, nuclear energy, hunting, fishing, and water conservation.

When you click on the About Us [Website] link on the site to learn more about the organization and what they do, you read that their founder was conservationist John Muir and that it is “the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States” (About the Sierra Club section). The Sierra Club counts their successes, “securing protection for 439 parks and monuments, to winning passage of the Clean Air and Endangered Species Acts” (How we do it section). In addition, the group “works to advance climate solutions and ensure everyone has access to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment” (Our Roots section).

This website has a clear pro-environmental bias.

An example that might not be so obvious is an article titled “Optimizing the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Using Current and Future Insulin Technologies,” published in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal called MEDSURG Nursing.

The article, written by Mary E. Boyle, compares various insulin treatments for individuals with type 2 diabetes. The author, Mary E. Boyle, is a certified nurse practitioner in the Department of Endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona. She is also a CDE, or Certified Diabetes Educator, who holds a BC-ADM certification, which means she passed the Board-Certified Advanced Diabetes Management examination. This information suggests that she’s highly qualified to write on this topic and will be a fairly objective source.

However, the article may contain bias. The article contains the following note:

“Novo Nordisk funded writing and editing assistance …and this financial assistance was not an educational grant. Editing and medical accuracy review were carried out on the manuscript by Novo Nordisk.” (Boyle, 2008, p. 383).

If you were to search online for Novo Nordisk, you’d see that it is a pharmaceutical company that produces insulin pens and needles. The article contains some subtle bias toward pens over other types of insulin therapy. For example:

• “Insulin pens can reduce the complexity and stigma of insulin administration. They are not only convenient and easy to transport, but also unobtrusive to use” (p. 385).
• “Pens were preferred to syringe injection by 75%-90% of patients in crossover studies” (p. 385).
• “As a result of their ease of use and high adherence rates, insulin pens can reduce insulin-related hypoglycemic events and more severe long-term complications, thereby improving patient quality of life” (p. 386).
• “In addition, pen adoption probably can reduce the number of home visits for injection assistance by making injections easier for partially disabled patients to manage independently” (p. 386).

The article does contain a section on insulin pumps. It explains how pumps function and their purpose. However, unlike the section about insulin pens, it does not tell the reader about the advantages of pump therapy, even though someone with experience or knowledge of this topic should be familiar with those advantages and know that, according to the medical literature, a pump offers even better blood glucose control than insulin pens. There is also a section that focuses on jet injectors and presents primarily negative aspects of this technique for blood glucose control.

Novo Nordisk produces insulin pens, but NOT pumps or jet injectors. The article presented positive information about insulin pens, negative information about jet injectors, and neutral information about pumps. Although written by a well-qualified author and published in a peer-reviewed journal, the article exhibits a bias that must be taken into account when evaluating it as a source.

The Trust Project

With the spread of misinformation becoming an increasingly problematic issue, award-winning journalist Sally Lehrman developed The Trust Project [Website] to help readers regain trust in journalism.

The Trust Project has created “The 8 Trust Indicators” [Website] to help evaluate news sources. Use these questions to assess the trustworthiness of the news sources you find:

1. Best practices
   1. What are the news outlet’s standards?
   2. Who funds it?
   3. Is there a mission statement?
   4. Is there any information about commitments to ethics, diverse voices, accuracy, making corrections, and other standards?
2. Journalist expertise
   1. Who wrote this?
   2. Can you find any relevant details or information about the journalist(s), such as their area of expertise, their credentials, or other stories they have worked on?
3. Labels
   1. What type of article is this?
   2. Are there any labels to distinguish opinion, analysis, and advertiser (or sponsored) content from news reports?
4. References
   1. What are the sources?
   2. For investigative or in-depth stories, is there access to the sources behind the facts and assertions?
5. Methods
   1. How was this story built?
   2. For in-depth stories, is there information about why reporters chose to pursue a story and how they went about the process?
6. Locally sourced
   1. Do you know if the story has a local origin or expertise?
   2. Was the reporting done on the scene? Was the reporter knowledgeable about the local situation or community?
7. Diverse voices
   1. What are the newsroom’s efforts and commitment to bringing in diverse perspectives?
   2. Are certain voices, ethnicities, or political persuasions missing?
8. Actionable feedback
   1. Can readers provide feedback that might alter or expand a story?
   2. Is the newsroom making efforts to engage the public’s help in setting coverage priorities, contributing to the reporting process, and ensuring accuracy?
   3. Is any contact information provided?