Are my words safe in your mouth?

 Billy – age 4 “When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You just know that your name is safe in their mouth.” 

 

I don’t know who Billy is, but I’m guessing he’s no longer 4. But he nailed it. I hope I can do him justice in the following, that his words are indeed safe in my writing. I was reminded of this quote, while I was polishing my literature review months back, think Forth Rail bridge ...  Then last week I had some work stolen and it’s upset me - possibly more than it should.  I received an email asking me to agree to corrections made to a training handout of mine. It is  a little ridiculous I know! Had I been approached first, I would have shared recent happily. But I was left feeling attacked.  Since then I have had a number of conversations about reference and citation, clearly some people struggle to see the wrong in paraphrasing or copying without mentioning authors’ names.  

 

When I am referencing I am foremost keen to demonstrate the privilege it is to quote someone’s hard work. I take care to articulate their understanding, to pass on their ideas, and to respect their words. I always feel a sense of trepidation. I just hope that my struggle with the written word never makes another’s ideas seem different to what they meant, that their work is safe under my 'pen'. The numbers involved fill me with fear, (678, p. 70), as getting them wrong would suggest carelessness - when in my case it could be ham-fistedness not ill intent. There’s an ocean of difference, I think, between misspelling or interposing numbers and wilfully denying where an idea was found. Who said it, when?

 

Ahmed talks about her library of female writers as a source of strength (Ahmed, 2017). Equally, I refer to a library in my own work. I purposely look for authors who identify, show an understanding of their field or have a perspective/sensitivity aligned to the topics they write about. Black writers, that identify as anti-racist and use a critical race perspective, for example. I do not always agree with every word written, but I’ll try and convey my understanding of the cultural context and the fight for certain ideas at the time of writing. In terms of disability rights, what disabled people fought for in the 1970s will not match today’s struggle, but I would still take care to understand their perspective, rather than dismiss ideas we have been able to build on since. Opposing professional power may seem less radical today than the nuanced conversations about ableism. But the departure from established narratives they have come to inform later was seismic, because it's harder to oppose established ideas that to add to an evolving way of thinking. 

 

Together writers on a topic tell of the development of an emerging story, not the right or wrong of any point within its storytelling.  Like Ahmed I find power in being able to refer to members of a tribe, my gang, particularly when trying to articulate where I found strength in shared direction. Over the years, reading the work of others, has been about adding depth and breadth to my own knowledge. So referencing comes with high degrees of care, I am mindful that the writers I quote have no doubt spent days choosing one word rather than another. I do not wish to paraphrase, or missquote, writing out of context in a way that would alter meaning. I’ve come across this, thankfully rarely- it stinks!

 

With practice I’ve become more able to think about the possible identity, perspective and  professional context in which writers write. What are they seeking to convey overall, what do they care about, and maybe what they are fighting for or against. The brackets, name, and numbers, are ultimately about celebrating another person’s hard  work. Respecting their vision, feelings and thoughts - motivation and passion that shines through text. Sometimes this means accepting idiosyncrasies that may be at odds with today’s culture, sensitivity and understanding. Yes, as academic conventions dictate, it is about the form, but it's about respect for knowledge and storytelling - a writer’s story with its unique narrative. 

 

More specifically for the researchers among us, the literature review I think has the purpose of setting the pieces of work we draw on in context. No study is going to be the first or last piece of work on the subject. The review is a map of past and present thinkers in your field of investigation. For me it’s been less straightforward that I expected, but I found important in the process was connecting past and present, setting a scene of change.

 

 

Breaking The Bias

With huge thanks to Emma, and the University of Birmingham alumni team [@BBSalumniUoB]!! Let’s break the bias together! 

Mind the box

Our minds need to deal with a huge amount of information on a daily basis, so it’s unsurprising that we tend to lump stuff together. The boxes we shove information into, the stereotyping, isn’t the problem! What creates bias is the lack of thought we give to this boxing and its impact on our feelings and the difficulty we have in retrieving stuff. We rarely question, for example, whether it was put away correctly in the first place. Our boxing system is neither nuanced nor sensitive, it does not matter whether ideas are good, bad, right or wrong, in they go largely unquestioned. It seems volume matters more than accuracy, if what we hear is loud enough, and what we see is noticeable enough, we lob it in. If we hear sexist, homophobic, and racist comments they end up in a box. We have boxes full of ‘em.  Indeed, confirmation bias will see us actively adding conspicuous anomalies to our boxes, rather than looking out for the positive contributions individuals and groups make to the world around us.

 

When we think too fast, we react to the box, rather than take time to reflect on what is inside it - what we’ve seen, heard or read. Our judgements are skewed when based on what is assumed, our reaction likely to be in tune with what we feel – not at odds with what we think, had we taken time to question these feelings.  

At the crossroads on Women’s Day

As a disabled woman, I can speak on how ableism and ableism intersect. I used to be quite baffled by how emphatically some have rejected my experience over the decades.

A colleague once asked for my address, when I got to West Yorkshire… "no" they said … I looked at them somewhat confused. A stream of justifications followed, explaining why they had assumed that ‘West’ was not a region and why they felt I was wrong. I had to remind them it was my address, therefore I was most likely to know if it was correct or not. It was an uncomfortable moment for us both but illustrates quite clearly how unconscious bias works to confirm prejudice. A prejudice that ordinarily was absent in the appreciation of my contribution until that moment of inattention. Prejudiced was the assumption, in the split-second reaction, influencing my colleague's choice between my truth and theirs [here mine was rejected, but maybe I would have accepted theirs had I not been so certain of my own address - positive prejudice].

 

I’ve experienced this sort of thing many times, and the more I notice it the more it infuriates me. While I understand how bias happens, it’s no less painful to hear someone not believing you. Furthermore, BECAUSE it’s unconscious, I am likely to rattle someone’s certainty when opposing their feelings. They may feel they are right, but would possibly agree that the ideas they hold may be wrong. So it is of little help to point out the reaction, without the stereotype it is based on - the stories that are rarely questioned. Which makes the bias, or unchallenged assumption, especially difficult to stop. Because engaging in the stereotypes, lurking in everyday myths, demands a willingness to become aware of how prejudice works, and the lack of awareness that drives it. How seemingly unremarkable ideas lead us to have beliefs that we do not articulate.

 

Language and culture 

Our language and our culture create our world, what we say and what we see, is the fabric on which we weave our own story. Language matters because what gets the most airtime becomes the most trusted story - in the bigger storytelling. The shortcuts we take, for example in office or technical terminology, often reinforce either negative or positive ideas, particularly where wording does not help convey the complexity beyond our focus. Largely we stop questioning the assumptions we encounter daily when we hear the same story time and time again. If an idea is at odds with our experience [West Yorkshire] it will be dismissed, in time the exceptional is ignored and alternative views may disappear from the conversation altogether. When stressed, embarrassed, tired, or pushed for time, we rely more on feeling. It is then that we are less able to hear alternative views. Sadly our feelings aren’t critical or nuanced, we are far more likely to react to the box than think about what’s in it. Unless we're careful, we stop questioning the dominant narrative: the sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, religious intolerance, and the rejection of family or personal choice, because it's just too unremarkable being around us every day.

 

Unfortunately, when the ideas about a group of people are largely negative, our thoughts and actions may alter. For example, if we hear often enough that widget makers are cranky, we might approach them with trepidation- without even realising why we’re acting differently.  To unlearn bias we will need to identify very mindfully that the assumption - cranky - is worth questioning to then think quite deliberately about its veracity. Are the widget makers I’ve met cranky? Is it likely that ALL widget makers are equally cranky? Is it more likely that among widget makers some may be cranky but on the whole no more than any other group? In addition, overall there are more differences between widget makers than those not making widgets. Have widget makers had bad press over the years? Could their actions also be a reaction to this bad PR!?

 

Questioning the assumption

The bias, regarding sexism and ableism, comes from what we’ve seen and heard about disabled women over the years. Silence, or negative ideas, may have led to a list of unarticulated beliefs that sway our judgment, and while the ideas we boxed unquestionably may seem incongruous when exposed, it’s likely we react to them without thinking. Gladwell suggests we react so fast, in the blink of an eye, that our excuse is built on reaction rather than the assumption. the bias, then, is reinforced by thinking, rather than the idea exposed for myth. In this cycle, while evidence may be ignored, experience sits at odds with wider understanding becoming less important than our experience.  

 

While we ignore the impact of stereotypes on our actions, we’ll also unwittingly seek to confirm our bias, by not noticing the negative implications of our poor practice. Those in receipt of prejudice tend to react, rather than flourish, in an internal struggle against the discrimination they encounter. Energy directed in defence will be unavailable for advance. 

Breaking good

 Being nice does not break bias, particularly when it reinforces an otherwise unarticulated belief that some women are needy or deserving of pity. Exposing the myths is more important, a good spring clean of what we've boxed. Disabled women are no needier or wanting of pity. Exposing the negative ideas, those we see all too often when we search for them, and encourages us to identify the sexist/ablist assumptions behind so many storylines. Courageous, vile, uneducated, stupid, unfeeling - the many characterisations of cranky - imposed on groups and individuals.  

Breaking bias calls on us to replace complacency with action. To notice the assumptions, if not in the moment, soon after it! By asking "why did I feel I had to question and correct Joanna Jones?"  Reflection in action may be better still "before I interrupt Joanna, I better trust Ms Jones, and stop myself from interrupting or correcting her". Better still is to look for the harmful impact of many assumptions, hold them up for scrutiny, and think about the unintended consequences of what we say.  Thinking about Joanna Jones’s experience having to negotiate sexism and ableism, and understanding her success in breaking expectations- an achievement that needs to be evident. Most probably proof of her tenacity - not a fancy tale about her failure.

 

Reflection for action [rather than -in or -on action]  in its pre-emptive nature may be the best solution to breaking the bias. Not a quick fix, given the amount of homework needed to explore the alternatives, but certainly a route to shedding a light on the negative attitudes we are led by when we are not full of care. As we are called to think slow, rather than quick, let’s be willing to take a little time for the effort to appreciate the strength and knowledge in others with the sensitivity we owe them.

 

 

Bibliography

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: Harper Collins.

Anderson, T. (2017). Telling the story of disability. Retrieved 11 10, 2018, from Washington state university libraries: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/handle/2376/12238

Berghs, M., Atkin, K., Graham, H., Hatton, C., & Thomas, C. (2017, 6 24). Public health, research and rights: the perspectives of deliberation panels with politically and socially active disabled people. Disability & Society, pp. 945-965.

Bryant, Watson, & Philo. (2011). Bad News for Disabled People: How the newspapers are reporting disability. University of Glasgow, Inclusion London. Glasgow: Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research and Glasgow Media Uni.

Burch, L. (2018). ‘You are a parasite on the productive classes: online disablist hate speech in austere time'. Disability and Society, 33(3), pp. 392-415.

Coleman, J., Brunell, A., & Hauge, I. (2014). Multiple Forms of Prejudice: How Gender and Disability Stereotypes Influence Judgments of Disabled Women and Men. Science+Business Media, 34, 177–189.

Crow, L. (2014, 8 28). Scroungers and Superhumans: Images of Disability from the Summer of 2012: A Visual Inquiry. Journal of visual culture, 13(2), pp. 168-181.

Deal, M. (2007). Aversive disablism: subtle prejudice toward disabled people. Disability & Society, 22(1).

Gladwell, M. (2008). Blink - The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. London: Penguin Books.

Hughes, B. (2015, Sept 11). 'Disabled people as counterfeit citizens: the politics of resentment past and present'. Disability and Society, 14.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Abingdon: Routledge.