February 8, 2026
Galina:
Strategy 1: Bibliographical Trails
One strategy to defeat their own confirmation bias is to follow bibliographical trails. The text encourages the researcher to explore more than just one or two sources to confirm an idea. Rather, it is important to look at the citations, reference list, and authors that are repeatedly mentioned in the works. Through this process, the researcher can be exposed to many different perspectives that can help challenge the assumptions they have established. If the researcher looks specifically for sources that disagree with their claim, they may be able to learn more about the views from a perspective that the readers already know and will expect the researcher to address.
This connects directly to our Literature Review activity and discussion of Novelty. At first, I felt like the literature review was just a box to check, but I now understand it in more depth, helping me understand what has already been said, where prior researchers disagree, and where there are still gaps in the work. Novelty doesn't come from ignoring previous work, and as the textbook mentions, it is from deeply engaging with it and finding where you can expand upon or challenge the existing ideas.
Personal Example:
I often assume that people learn programming best when they jump straight into writing code, the application of practice and applying themselves, since that's how I've made the most progress myself. To challenge this assumption, I could use bibliographical trails to explore research on different learning approaches to evaluate whether my hands-on approach is universally effective for all programmers, or if it just works well for my learning style.
A second strategy would be to engage the sources you read actively by reading them more than once. The text lets the readers know that after you read it generously, you should reread it critically. By not jumping into the search for the weaknesses in the article, you will be able to fully understand the author's argument before you evaluate it. This approach can help combat confirmation bias because instead of collecting information that will support your claim, you analyze how the arguments are built and what evidence was used towards it. This will help you, as the researcher, see its limitations.
In our Literature Review activity, this mattered because you can't simply summarize the articles. True engagement means identifying how each source contributes to the conversation and how your project relates to that larger body of work. That’s where novelty begins: when you recognize what others have done and consciously position your research in response.
It takes more than just citing wherever you first encountered an idea to ensure proper attribution. The reading emphasizes that you should record complete bibliographical data, make sure to check the primary sources when possible, and trace the ideas back to their original researchers. This means acknowledging both the source of a claim and the evidence behind it, rather than relying on secondhand summaries.
Required Aspects for Proper Attribution:
Clearly distinguish your own ideas from paraphrases and quotations in your notes.
Citing original studies instead of only secondary sources.
Representing authors’ arguments accurately and in context.
By reading Ch. 5 and Ch. 6 of The Craft of Research, I am more aware of the strategies I can use to confront my own confirmation bias and apply that knowledge to our research project. The Literature Review activity showed me that research is a conversation; it is a conversation between ourselves and the research that has already been done. Through careful reading and attributing ideas responsibly, researchers can strengthen their arguments while preserving academic integrity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Aro:
The first strategy that I think would be helpful for young researcher is engaging with source thoughtfully. I am still practicing this one myself as I find myself thinking I understand the source when I skim through them but that can lead to misunderstanding and inaccuracy. A researcher should first try to understand a source on its own terms and avoid the temptation to dismiss ideas simply because they conflict with their expectations.
The second strategy that I think is helpful it to look for sources that directly disagree with what I am trying to prove or with my position as the researcher. And to actually take them seriously. I think this shows that as a researcher, you have carefully looked at all the opinions and published research on your topic and adds more to the credibility and value of your findings.
One assumption I have in my own experience is that I tend to trust sources more when they directly support my point and I am more likely to dismiss sources that challenge it. This may lead to bias or inaccurate findings. I should question the sources critically and thoughtfully as the reading suggests. I could also use the sources that disagree with my viewpoint to test the strength of my argument. Judge which evidence is stronger or whether they reveal gaps in my reasoning, and so on.
Talking about the proper way to give attribution, before this reading, I really thought citing the first place you saw or heard it was enough. But as the reading highlights, proper attribution starts at the note taking stage. One should strive to always make it clear which are direct quotes, paraphrases, and their own thoughts. This is to avoid mistakenly taking someone's ideas as your own. The reading also emphasizes the importance of checking primary sources whenever possible, since secondary sources can misrepresent arguments or strip ideas of their original context.
With our exercise of literature review that we are doing in class, I can see many of the strategies discussed in the reading being applied in practice. The authors engaged with a wide range of prior work across HCI, fashion, data visualization, and material culture. Furthermore, their references shows how they examined existing wearable technologies, traditional numerical data displays and so on, which reflects the idea from the reading that strong research comes from understanding the broader conversation, not just selecting sources that confirm a single viewpoint.