Watts et al. (Reference Watts, Gray and Medeiros2021) rightly suggest the incorporation of side effects education into organizational interventions courses as well as research methods courses. In addition, I argue that doctoral students need help developing an intellectual mindset in which they consistently question their own preconceptions to overcome inclinations toward confirmation bias. Confirmation bias describes the tendency for individuals to look for, pay more attention to, and remember information that aligns with previously held beliefs (Oswald & Grosjean, Reference Oswald, Grosjean and Pohl2004). It can influence every part of research from research design and data collection to the review process (Hergovich et al., Reference Hergovich, Schott and Burger2010; King et al., Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2018; Masnick & Zimmerman, Reference Masnick and Zimmerman2009). Although seasoned experts are less susceptible to confirmation bias because of experience, novices are much more so (Van Ophuysen, Reference Van Ophuysen2006) indicating that doctoral education is fertile grounds for sustained change.
Intellectual humility
As scholars, we must be able to identify where we hold too tightly to our ideas about the outcomes and unintended consequences of our research. Intellectual humility is considered essential to averting confirmation bias when assessing evidence that contradicts held beliefs (Zmigrod et al., Reference Zmigrod, Zmigrod, Rentfrow and Robbins2019). Defined as recognizing “a particular personal belief may be fallible, accompanied by an appropriate attentiveness to limitations in the evidentiary basis of that belief and to one’s own limitations in obtaining and evaluating relevant information” (Leary et al., Reference Leary, Diebels, Davisson, Jongman-Sereno, Isherwood, Raimi, Deffler and Hoyle2017, p. 793), intellectual humility is associated with openness, curiosity, and tolerance for ambiguity (Zmigrod et al., Reference Zmigrod, Zmigrod, Rentfrow and Robbins2019). These are all qualities we should hope to cultivate in future researchers as they make decisions on research topics, design research programs and interventions, evaluate outcomes, and determine where subsequent research effort is directed. Additionally, these young researchers will eventually take on leadership roles and determine where research funding is allocated and what type of research is incentivized. We should train them to make those decisions critically and without personal bias but with a pure motivation to improve organizational life for all participants.
Teaching intellectual humility
Roberts (Reference Roberts and Baehr2015) recommends four practices for developing intellectual humility: practicing gratitude and generosity, thinking critically about our culture, identifying pride and its consequences, and modeling intellectual humility. First, gratitude and generosity can be encouraged by pairing students as peer reviewers (Roberts, Reference Roberts and Baehr2015). Partners could critique each other’s writing (giving of one’s time and skills) and share with the class what they learned from their partner over the course of the semester (showing gratitude). Instructors can encourage students to challenge each other’s preconceived notions regarding their own research and identify potential consequences of any assumptions they are making.
Second, when discussing assigned readings, instructors may draw attention to the culture of academic publication and pose questions as to why a certain article was likely published. Was an article built on a timely topic, strong theory, solid methods, unique data collection, or was it possibly academia’s obsession with novelty and originality (Roberts, Reference Roberts and Baehr2015) that led to its publication? Training students to think critically about the publication process is an excellent step toward broad systemic change and promoting research that is purposeful as opposed to novel.
Third, acknowledging the pride problem in academia is important. We tend to converse with ourselves, which creates an air of exclusivity and perceived intellectual snobbery that results in diminished influence. Students will read a vast amount of academic research and learn to write mostly for other academics in their doctoral programs. They should be taught to consider and reflect on the accessibility and relevance of their own research and the entire field’s research to the broader population. In a classroom activity, students could evaluate a study’s sample and determine whether there are assumptions made about it that may detract from the study’s generalizability. Students can attempt to identify any unforeseen consequences of the research and determine how they would clearly communicate the study’s findings and underlying mechanisms (including moderating effects) to groups other than the study’s sample and academicians (Watts et al., Reference Watts, Gray and Medeiros2021). Additionally, a history lesson on some of the field’s missteps and reluctance to further explore these consequences should be included in curriculum. Assigning the focal article as required reading would be an excellent launching point for this discussion.
Finally, instructor modeling of intellectual humility is imperative. We need doctoral faculty who have a balanced view of their own knowledge and expertise. They should be capable of disclosing to students where their own limits lie and simultaneously model enthusiasm for pushing those limits. By implementing these simple practices in the classroom, we can hope to develop young researchers capable of acknowledging their own biases and with the sort of scientific curiosity that overpowers concerns of self-image in the hopes of extending knowledge and adding to human understanding.
You have
Access
Watts et al. (Reference Watts, Gray and Medeiros2021) rightly suggest the incorporation of side effects education into organizational interventions courses as well as research methods courses. In addition, I argue that doctoral students need help developing an intellectual mindset in which they consistently question their own preconceptions to overcome inclinations toward confirmation bias. Confirmation bias describes the tendency for individuals to look for, pay more attention to, and remember information that aligns with previously held beliefs (Oswald & Grosjean, Reference Oswald, Grosjean and Pohl2004). It can influence every part of research from research design and data collection to the review process (Hergovich et al., Reference Hergovich, Schott and Burger2010; King et al., Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2018; Masnick & Zimmerman, Reference Masnick and Zimmerman2009). Although seasoned experts are less susceptible to confirmation bias because of experience, novices are much more so (Van Ophuysen, Reference Van Ophuysen2006) indicating that doctoral education is fertile grounds for sustained change.
Intellectual humility
As scholars, we must be able to identify where we hold too tightly to our ideas about the outcomes and unintended consequences of our research. Intellectual humility is considered essential to averting confirmation bias when assessing evidence that contradicts held beliefs (Zmigrod et al., Reference Zmigrod, Zmigrod, Rentfrow and Robbins2019). Defined as recognizing “a particular personal belief may be fallible, accompanied by an appropriate attentiveness to limitations in the evidentiary basis of that belief and to one’s own limitations in obtaining and evaluating relevant information” (Leary et al., Reference Leary, Diebels, Davisson, Jongman-Sereno, Isherwood, Raimi, Deffler and Hoyle2017, p. 793), intellectual humility is associated with openness, curiosity, and tolerance for ambiguity (Zmigrod et al., Reference Zmigrod, Zmigrod, Rentfrow and Robbins2019). These are all qualities we should hope to cultivate in future researchers as they make decisions on research topics, design research programs and interventions, evaluate outcomes, and determine where subsequent research effort is directed. Additionally, these young researchers will eventually take on leadership roles and determine where research funding is allocated and what type of research is incentivized. We should train them to make those decisions critically and without personal bias but with a pure motivation to improve organizational life for all participants.
Teaching intellectual humility
Roberts (Reference Roberts and Baehr2015) recommends four practices for developing intellectual humility: practicing gratitude and generosity, thinking critically about our culture, identifying pride and its consequences, and modeling intellectual humility. First, gratitude and generosity can be encouraged by pairing students as peer reviewers (Roberts, Reference Roberts and Baehr2015). Partners could critique each other’s writing (giving of one’s time and skills) and share with the class what they learned from their partner over the course of the semester (showing gratitude). Instructors can encourage students to challenge each other’s preconceived notions regarding their own research and identify potential consequences of any assumptions they are making.
Second, when discussing assigned readings, instructors may draw attention to the culture of academic publication and pose questions as to why a certain article was likely published. Was an article built on a timely topic, strong theory, solid methods, unique data collection, or was it possibly academia’s obsession with novelty and originality (Roberts, Reference Roberts and Baehr2015) that led to its publication? Training students to think critically about the publication process is an excellent step toward broad systemic change and promoting research that is purposeful as opposed to novel.
Third, acknowledging the pride problem in academia is important. We tend to converse with ourselves, which creates an air of exclusivity and perceived intellectual snobbery that results in diminished influence. Students will read a vast amount of academic research and learn to write mostly for other academics in their doctoral programs. They should be taught to consider and reflect on the accessibility and relevance of their own research and the entire field’s research to the broader population. In a classroom activity, students could evaluate a study’s sample and determine whether there are assumptions made about it that may detract from the study’s generalizability. Students can attempt to identify any unforeseen consequences of the research and determine how they would clearly communicate the study’s findings and underlying mechanisms (including moderating effects) to groups other than the study’s sample and academicians (Watts et al., Reference Watts, Gray and Medeiros2021). Additionally, a history lesson on some of the field’s missteps and reluctance to further explore these consequences should be included in curriculum. Assigning the focal article as required reading would be an excellent launching point for this discussion.
Finally, instructor modeling of intellectual humility is imperative. We need doctoral faculty who have a balanced view of their own knowledge and expertise. They should be capable of disclosing to students where their own limits lie and simultaneously model enthusiasm for pushing those limits. By implementing these simple practices in the classroom, we can hope to develop young researchers capable of acknowledging their own biases and with the sort of scientific curiosity that overpowers concerns of self-image in the hopes of extending knowledge and adding to human understanding.