The Cancer of Bias in International Relations Analysis

One of the my main takeaways from my MA in War and Contemporary Conflict was that the key to ending a war is targeting the issues that comprise its central root. In today’s world of violent international polarization, bias is indeed at the central root of every war. Nevertheless, we avoid to speak about it, because we are all biased one way or another. Sometimes we realise it, sometimes we don’t. But the damage is done regardless, and it affects millions of lives; and our egos and fear of exposion don’t usually leave room for self-awareness and reflection. Whoever is an International Relations scholar trying to stay sober and impartial knows that the struggle is real, because it has had an impact on their lives and their work. It is hard to call for restraint, prudence and impartiality if those are considered synonymous to fascism or favorable position of the enemy side by irresponsible journalists and inadequately trained know-alls. But the heavy death toll that bias often claims doesn’t know excuses and after-party crocodile tears; it only knows of overlooked and misinterpreted data, intentionally ignored factors, and unforseen developments (or, better, developments that could have been forseen but decision-makers, their analysts and biased journalists refused to see them as realistic possibilities).

At this point, we should define bias. Collins English Dictionary provides a few definitions for bias. The following three are the most applicable to our case:

• (Variable Noun): “Bias is a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another, and to favour that person or thing”.
• (Variable Noun): “Bias is a concern with or interest in one thing more than others”.
• (Verb): “To bias someone means to influence them in favour of a particular choice”.

What those definitions tell us about bias is that it is a practice used to manipulate and twist data so that the target decision-maker or the general public approve a policy that we prefer for our own reasons. Furthermore, a quite rogue but not uncommon practice amongst IR scholars is to attack the personality of our colleagues who disagree with us or attack the personality of the leader whose desicions we don’t like. And don’t let me start with pointing out the other side’s propaganda, while being silent about the one of our side. Yet our job is to clear the noise, not adding more to it.

Interpretation of data Vs. Expressing one’s personal view Vs. Storytelling

Of course, as individuals, we have our own personal experiences, our own stories and our own personal views shaped by such experiences. Depending on factors including where each of us have lived, what kind of start we had in life, what people we have hanged out with and how stable our immediate environment has been diachronically, we have our own personal views. And, I am afraid, this is the drama of our lives: our job is intertwined with politics, so sometimes we confuse our personal preferences with the nature of our scientific domain. Regardless, we need to avoid the trap of seeing data through our biased lenses, and, of course, we ought to refrain from twisting data in order to express our views. Data is data, data interpretation is data interpretation, personal experiences are personal experiences and personal views are personal views. As mature and professional IR scholars, our duty is to find the data, interpret it based on the principle of impartiality and make arguments based on that data and their interpretation. Otherwise, we are not IR scholars; we are arrogant journalists who, having spent a few years in international reporting, think that they are as knowledgeable in International Relations as properly trained and specialised IR scholars. Our job is not to tell stories that help implement personal agendas; instead, our job is to find data, use it in ethical ways, and provide responsible advice to decision-makers.

The negative impact of bias in International Relations analysis on global politics

The negative, far-reaching implications of bias in International Relations analysis are profound, affecting our understanding of global politics and the decisions made by states and international organizations.

First of, it clouds our reflexes in cases of emergency, our judgement on world developments, and our interpretation of International Relations concepts. It can affect our comprehension of alliances, the internal dynamics of different political regimes, the stability of treaties, and the emergence and resolution of conflicts. For instance, biased analyses may misinterpret the actions of non-state actors or fail to accurately predict the onset of humanitarian crises, such as genocide. It can also foster the use of double standards, the abuse of International Law, and, definitely, it can distract the world’s attention from really urgent security problems.

Bias isn’t healthy in the academic environment either when it comes in the field of International Relations. It is ironic how the marks go down because one argument in your essay has got one paragraph more than the other argument, but when it comes to expressing an informed view that contradicts with the line that the university has to follow to keep its donors on board, then you are considered incapable. But the transmission of biased information can lead to the indoctrination of students rather than their education, shaping the next generation of IR professionals with a skewed worldview. I don’t know about you, but as a student myself I have always chosen the path of critical thinking and unbiased research, because, despite being the most difficult, it leads to real knowledge. Adopting others’ arguments without processing them doesn’t make you a scholar, it makes you a puppet. And this is extremely problematic for the security and stability of our world.

Addressing the problem of bias in International Relations analysis

If we want to effectively address bias in International Relations analysis, we can only rely on arduous methods. Maybe our preference in shortcuts is the cause of today’s unprecedented levels of bias. Here follow some ways that can help us limit bias.

First and foremost, we should be vigilant and proactive in recognizing and mitigating bias throughout the research process. Bias is everywhere and can rule our brain if we are not alert. We should always question the source of the information. For example, analyst x said that y is true. On what data is his/her view based? How reliable is this data? Has he/she taken into consideration equally valid datasets that support the opposite argument? On what grounds does he/she dismiss them?

Diversification of sources is of fundamental importance too. We should seek out a wide range of perspectives, including non-English sources, to avoid the pitfalls of focusing on viewpoints that only favor our side. Even if we work in positions inside the foreign service, the national defense or the cabinet, we will only have a positive, long-term impact for our country when we take into account multiple sources and viewpoints. One reason why huge figures of global politics like Henry Kissinger were so successful was because they were open to all sources of information and were patient with the views of their foreign counterparts, hence able to do business with anybody and make it beneficial for their country. Of course, people like Kissinger might have been controversial, but never impatient, arrogant or know-alls.

Last but not least, since academia also plays a big part in bias in the field of International Relations, the academic community should encourage open dialogue and debate on the issue. By discussing and critiquing each other’s work, scholars can collectively work towards reducing bias and improving the quality of IR research. This means that Politics and International Relations departments shall be used as providers of education and not as tools of policy. This is rather challenging given the fact that policy-making is the object of study for all subfields of Political Science; however, unless we learn to distinguish between the two and focus on the data, our degrees are useless.

In conclusion

Bias is for International Relations like cancer in fact: it can take many forms, it can be found anywhere, and it spreads uncontrollably under one’s nose, and it claims innocent lives. Being practically blindfolded, we are unable to prevent the aggravation of existing threats and the emergence of new ones. We are all guilty of bias, because it is so difficult to separate our experiences and agendas from data. But the challenging times that we are all going through require that we, the experts, use some sober thinking.