Bias, intentional or otherwise, is a constant challenge for analysts. Bias enters the analytical process in three main ways - via the flow of information (source bias), the analyst’s own experience and ideals (personal bias), and through methodological and analytical processes (cognitive bias). Through awareness and the application of tailored techniques, analysts can mitigate (but never fully eliminate) the impact of biases on their work.
Awareness is the most important startling point. All information has a bias, whether intentional or incidental. The very choice of what to report is itself a form of bias, as it prioritizes one piece of information over another, or chooses to connect data with an implied relationship.
One easy step to reduce the risk of source bias is to draw on multiple sources for information. This may include looking at the way newspapers with different underlying political leanings report on an incident or trend, making sure to draw information and observations from different regional or national perspectives, and comparing singular on-the-ground reporting from collated outside-in reporting. By tracking sources over time, the analyst can determine what sort of information is more or less reliable from a particular source, and how to interpret the choice and focus of reporting to better understand the core details aside from the reporting slant.
Tracing back information to its earliest source also helps both recognize and reduce the way information may shift and change in telling and context as it passes through layers of retelling or editing. This is particularly important for quotes and paraphrases, where the context of the comments are often as important as the words themselves. By placing information in its context, it allows the analyst to better assess how to interpret the information, whether from direct first-person sources, from social or traditional media, or from government and industry.
Personal bias, that of the analyst, is both conscious and subconscious. Conscious bias is the easiest to deal with in many ways, because it is intentional. An analyst may have a particular political preference, for example, but by being aware of that preference, they can seek to set it aside while doing the analytical work, and pick it back up later in their personal life. A good question to remind analysts of this difference is to consider not what “should” happen, but rather what is “likely” to happen - to set aside personal desires and seek a more objective assessment.
Each analyst is the product of their own life experiences, and thus has a different set of analogies and knowledge from which to draw when analyzing new information and trends. By intentionally teaming analysts with others from different backgrounds and experiences, it is possible to draw on a wider set of insights, and thus reduce the risk of settling on an assessment based on just a narrow set of perceived options. It is also useful to pair analysts based not only on personal background but on different areas of expertise, and occasionally to bring in a “non-expert” to ask the “dumb” questions that often reveal assumptions that may have grown stale or have long gone unchallenged. Analysts should also maintain a robust set of relationships and exchanges outside their organization, to draw on different perspectives that can test and challenge internal thinking and assessments.
To manage analytical biases, organizations have developed over time a series of structured analytic techniques that can be employed to actively combat cognitive biases. Simple techniques include making sure to explore numerous historical analogies rather than jump on the first that seems to fit a problem, building mini teams that match various knowledge bases together, and bringing in facilitators to manage structured brainstorming and idea generation processes. Other techniques include periodic reversions to “zero-based” analysis (removing pre-existing assumptions to see if there are alternative ways to assess a situation or trend), empathetic analysis (seeking to assess what shapes the thoughts and behaviors of international actors, rather than mirror imaging the analysts’ own perspectives), and being cognizant of the difference between “objective” geopolitics (which assists in determining likely outcomes) and “perceptive” geopolitics (which is what shapes how decision makers make their decisions).
A frequently used structured technique also applies to forecasting and scenario building processes, which use a formalized (but modifiable) methodology to identify and test core assumptions and explore alternative future pathways. In this way, analysts are able to explore alternative futures, identify indicators, and monitor events to see whether one plausible further may become more likely than the others. In doing so, the analyst is less likely to try and force new information to fit old analysis, and thus be more open to change - countering a common bias of always trying to be proven right even in the face of contrary evidence.
