UKC

Imagine there were many papers regarding research into a comparison between two different professions but all these pieces of research were only undertaken by members of one of these professions.

Does this not introduce some sort of bias because there is no research from the other side? Is there a specific name for this kind of bias? I was thinking professional bias but this doesn't seem to be the correct term for it.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

in-group bias or confirmation bias could kick in depending on the exact research.

In reply to Sonya Mc:
As an example if comparisons of Osteopathy and Chiropractic were all carried out by chiropractors? I would expect the bias to be a mixture of factors:

Selection bias of the data used or tests employed.

Biased phraseology, using carefully chosen language. For instance Labour describe the change in benefits payments based on occupancy as a "bedroom tax" while the Conservatives use more favourable language.

In reply to Sonya Mc:
Potential lack of objectivity or potential conflict of interest?

In reply to Sonya Mc: Does it not depend on the purpose of the study and the quality of the researchers? Is there more to it that just the research question (ie does prof.A think it's being stitched up/ denigrated by prof B? Does Prof A think there are serious failings with Prof B that aren't being addressed?). Who is doing the research? Professionals? Students? some sort of lobbying agency?

Balance is not the same as objectivity. For example, there are lots of good, objective, well researched studies around the exact shape of the earth. Are these studies unbalanced because they don't represent the flat earth society? It's similar to the press reporting of mmr - the perceived need to represent both sides equally means that wierd pressure groups get equal exposure as medical professionals - maybe resulting in the Swansea epidemic

In reply to toad: Ah yes, I see your point.

I'll give a bit more detail then.

The profession of Radiography is extending to include duties that would have traditionally have been undertaken by Radiologists. There are many studies which seem rigorous enough which have aimed to prove that Radiographers can report certain x-rays to the same standard as Radiologists. However, if theoretically all research was undertaken by Radiographers only, with no research undertaken by Radiologists, would this not introduce some sort of bias, particularly if all results are of a positive nature?

Would it be more correct to say the research findings might be considered unbalanced as opposed to biased?

In reply to Sonya Mc:
Everyone has bias.
Sometimes several, often contradictory.

Everyone has interests that influences their actions.

Everyone has a world view that allows them to see certain things, and hides other things from their sight.

The best research acknowledges these in the research report, and explains how these biases and preconceptions are allowed for.
The best reading of research is aware of the biases and limitations that may be present in the researcher and reads the research in the light of these biases.

The very best reading of research is also aware of the biases and preconceptions within oneself as a reader.

In reply to almost sane: Yes, quite aware of that. All I'm looking to ask is if there is a specific terminology for this sort of bias/unbalance.

In reply to Sonya Mc: Expectation Bias, maybe (I'm not so sure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_bias

In reply to Sonya Mc:

Are the radiographers the ones that push the on and off buttons, and the radiologists the ones that understand how the system works and how to interpret the images? And are the radiographers saying "we want to do what THEY do" without wanting to do the formal qualifications?

In reply to Blue Straggler: Radiographers do a lot more than push buttons, we understand the physics behind the technology, radiation safety, human anatomy from an anatomical perspective and a radiological perspective, image interpretation (though not to the same level and expertise as a Radiologist), pathology, mechanisms of injury, patient care.......

Radiographers already interpret and report on radiographic images in many areas to the (proven) same level as Radiologists in the areas of A&E muskulo-skeletal imaging, barium studies, CT head interpretation, mammography and certain areas of sonography.

We have formal qualifications to do the above at graduate and post graduate level.

My question is purely theoretical as studies exist to prove the competence of Radiographers in comparison to Radiologists from both professions perspective. However, my question was *if* the research only came from one profession and was unbalanced, would this constitute a bias and if so what would be the terminology?

Thanks everyone, I've decided against bias and gone more for imbalance.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

I think, too, there's the possibility of not having an awareness of what you don't know. Ie, theoretically, radiographers might look at a restricted set of common indicators/outcomes (upon which they perform as well as radiologists), but not be aware of other indicators that radiographers pick up on, that radiologists don't (perhaps spotting very rare abnormalities for what they are?)

Do I make sense? I have no idea if it's the case for radiographers/radiologists, but can imagine situations in which it may happen for say midwives/obstetricians, which I'm assuming is a similar relationship in at least some ways. Equally, they could be very good at spotting it's not normal, and referring on to determine what the cause is.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

Oops! I thought you were a radiologist

I know radiographers do more than push buttons, I have worked with them (nearly half a lifetime ago, mind you), I was being tongue-in-cheek

I think your question has been answered tenfold on this thread