Fooling ourselves and others: confirmation bias and the trustworthiness of qualitative research – Part 2 (cross-examining the dismissals)
Journal of Organizational Change Management
ISSN: 0953-4814
Article publication date: 16 August 2021
Issue publication date: 20 September 2021
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to describe and critique ways in which the threats from confirmation bias have been rejected.
Design/methodology/approach
Dismissals of the existence of, or threats from, confirmation bias are identified from a review of literature across a very wide range of disciplines. The dismissals are robustly examined.
Findings
The dismissals are categorised as: (1) radical scepticism (2) consequentialism: and (3) denial. Each type of dismissal, it is argued, is flawed.
Originality/value
The three-fold structuring of confirmation bias dismissal is novel. In addition to drawing from organisation, management and wider social science literature, the article also uses arguments and examples from the creative arts.
Keywords
Acknowledgements
Comments from Alan Bradshaw, David Collins, Barbara Czarniawska, participants in a seminar organized by CHRONOS (Centre for Critical and Historical Research on Organization and Society, Royal Holloway, University of London), and two anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged. The author especially thanks Sheila Duncan for her encouragement and the detailed observations.
Citation
McSweeney, B. (2021), "Fooling ourselves and others: confirmation bias and the trustworthiness of qualitative research – Part 2 (cross-examining the dismissals)", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 841-859. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2021-0118
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited