Mind Games in Research: Are Cognitive Biases Running the Show?

Before initiating any discussion let us first talk about what Cognitive Bias really means. Consider it a subtle, systematic mistake in thinking that can influence our judgements and decisions without our knowledge. Cognitive biases become complex in qualitative research, where subjectivity is both a strength and a challenge. These biases affect both researchers and participants, thus having the potential to affect both data collection and analysis. By investigating these "mind games"? we can gain a deeper comprehension of how biases affect research findings and discover strategies for maintaining the objectivity and depth of our studies. Are you prepared to see the unseen forces influencing your research?

Understanding Cognitive Biases in Qualitative Research

While doing qualitative research the subjectivity of the researcher and the participants generates rich data. But at the same time it brings in their bias. Professional pressures, social norms and their personal experiences (Please check the blog 'Gender Norms in South Asia: A Solipsistic Lens' by the author) can contribute to these biases. In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman offers an easy framework that helps us to understand these biases. he distinguishes two ways of thinking:

System 1: Fast, emotional, intuitive

System 2: Slow, rational and methodical

The intuitive and emotional System 1 Thinking, which frequently predominates in qualitative research, exposes participants and researchers to cognitive bias, confirmation bias, availability bias and anchoring bias.

Confirmation Bias and Researcher's Identity

In one of my earlier blogs, 'Gender Norms in South Asia: A Solipsistic Lens' I had written how a qualitative researcher might grapple with solipsism—a philosophical theory which asserts that only one's own mind is certain to exist—because of one's own experiences of gender norms and cultural context. This intellectual conflict deepens with confirmation bias,??which. is the propensity to look for and analyse data that supports preexisting beliefs. A researcher might tend to confirm or highlight what she/he already knows and supports, particularly in complex societies like South Asia. This occurs when researchers ignore data that challenges their presumptions because they feel compelled to support their subjective world views which may be influenced by regional gender norms. In his book Art of Thinking Clearly,?Rolf Dobelli explains how confirmation bias can distort decision-making, leading to skewed research outcomes. This is particularly relevant in the studies rooted in societal constructs of gender.

Example: A researcher may approach the study of? women's role in rural South Asian households believing that women's autonomy is severely constrained by traditional gender norms. She may minimise or ignore evidence of female agency or decision making power in other areas, such as handling household finances or making important family decisions. So while conducting interviews or observing behaviours she will concentrate on responses? and behaviours that support this belief, such as women carrying out domestic tasks or yielding to male authority figures.

How to beat it: To counter confirmation bias, researchers should? engage in what Kahneman refers to as 'System 2 Thinking'—a slower, more cautious approach that challenges the first impressions. He advises that before making snap judgements, stand back and consider, "Am I missing anything that contradicts my opinion?"

Availability Bias?

Availability bias is the tendency to rely on the most recent or vivid information; a picture/memory related to the topic that can be most easily recalled.? Using this recalled picture, it is likely that people either overestimate or underestimate a situation/outcome. This may cause researcher to focus only on the immediate memorable instances, shadowing the broader? reality of the situation. In his book Fooled By Randomness Nassim Taleb illustrates how this bias influences both personal choice and societal norms as a whole. He cautions that when we place too much emphasis on memorable results we neglect the role of randomness and the larger context, which frequently results in illogical or dangerous choices.

Example: A compelling story told early in the data collection process may have a disproportionately strong impact on the researcher's interpretation when interviewing participants about their experiences with gender norms. The researcher may overemphasise a participant's particularly dramatic story about workplace discrimination in their analysis, ignoring other participants' more subtle or subdued accounts.

How to beat it:?Some stories may not represent the whole truth. They can be outliers. As researchers, we need to remain grounded by focusing on the wider picture instead of getting carried away by a single compelling story. Such stories should be looked very carefully for the element of truth. In Fooled by Randomness, Taleb advises to recognise randomness.

Anchoring Bias?

In this cognitive bias, the researcher tends to rely heavily on the first piece of information she has collected on a topic. We accept and anchor this information as the correct piece of information. Interviews and data interpretation can be influenced by this bias. When participants initial answers set the tone for the entire interview, researcher may frame follow-up questions or analysis around these early statements, even if subsequent data contradicts them.

In the Art of Thinking, Rolf Dobelli explains anchoring as a trap that distorts our perception. Similarly, Daniel Kahneman mentions anchoring bias as a significant factor in decision making in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. He mentions how people often base their decisions on a starting point, even if that starting point is arbitrary or unrelated.

Example:?If the first vendor we meet marks his product at Rs. 100, then the subsequent vendor asking for Rs. 75 for the same product might sound cheap or the one asking for Rs. 125 sound expensive. Similarly, in qualitative research, if a participant initially speaks about traditional roles of a women in their families, the researcher may unintentionally direct the remainder of the interview to examine cultural dynamics rather than exploring other elements like financial pressures or individual autonomy, which could provide a more thorough understanding.

How to beat it: Rolf Dobelli suggests setting up "checkpoints" while conducting research. It is a good idea to pause and go over the notes and check whether we are placing too much importance on the preliminary information. It is advisable to keep checking yourself frequently. This keeps the interpretation balanced and avoids relying on the first reaction.?

Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Qualitative Research

Here are a few strategies to alleviate these biases during data collection and interpretation:

1. Reflexivity

Self-awareness or reflexivity is required to fight these biases.? Researchers may understand their professional roles and how their personal insecurities like imposter syndrome can affect how they interpret data. (Please read Imposter Syndrome in Qualitative Research by the author). Researchers can challenge their assumptions and the ways their cognitive biases may be affecting their work by practicing reflexivity. We should continuously ask ourselves 'are we seeing this objectively or is our mind playing games with us'.

2. Triangulation?

It is good practice to integrate various data sources and viewpoints to refute the conclusion you have reached. In Research Design, John W Creswell? emphasises triangulation as an effective method to identify biases, such as confirmation bias.

3. Collaborative Analysis

Invite additional researchers and participants to evaluate your results. It is a good strategy to identify the biases that we might have overlooked.

Conclusion

Since human experience is subjective , cognitive biases are unavoidable in qualitative research. However, identifying and resolving these biases is essential to generating legitimate and trustworthy research findings, as noted in my previous blogs. ('Gender Norms in South Asia: A Solipsistic Lens' and? 'Imposter Syndrome in Qualitative Research'). By using ideas from books like Thinking Fast and Slow, The Art of Thinking Clearly, Fooled by Randomness and Research Design, researchers can plan to reduce their cognitive bias and improve the validity of their qualitative studies.