The Power of Language

by Gregor Wolbring

7/31/08

Many of my columns look at ideas for new nanoscale products, processes and research, and examine the reaction of and impact on other fields of inquiry, such as social sciences, medicine, economics, health technology assessment, health research, anthropology, environmental sciences, and disability/vari-ability studies towards these ideas. Each nanoscale application comes with its own sales pitches, social consequences, problems and implications. It is obvious that different people, in accordance with their diverse backgrounds, will identify different purposes for nanoscale science and technologies, will define the problems nanoscale science and technology is envisioned to solve differently, will ask different questions, will seek out different people to answer the questions, and might even interpret the same answer to a given question in different ways.

Language is very important in every sales pitch. Concepts such as risk, safety, health, disease, disability, and impairment are key concepts in the sales pitches used to promote many nanoscale products and to secure support for research and development ideas. All of them are subject to biased interpretations that operate either consciously or unconsciously. To give one example; one often reads “The risk of having a child with Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother.” However the fact is that “The probability of having a child with Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother.” Using the term Risk is not a factual term but a judgmental and biased term.

Most people exhibit numerous biases some without even realizing that they have them and others they use for certain ends. What is needed is a tool that facilitates the identification of biases so that people can become more aware of them.

One tool which was recently developed in which I was involved is the BIAS FREE Framework. BIAS is an acronym for Building an Integrative Analytical System For Recognizing and Eliminating InEquities: 
Burke, M. A and Eichler, M (2006). The BIAS FREE Framework: A practical tool for identifying and eliminating social biases in health research Global Forum for health research ;
Margrit Eichler and Mary Anne Burke. "The BIAS FREE Framework: A New Analytical Tool for Global Health Research." Canadian Journal of Public Health 97.1 (2006): 63-68.. 
It was designed to provide a unified approach to detect biases that derive from any and all social hierarchies. I was allowed to reproduce the three main tables from their publication, which are provided below. Its a great tool for generating various angles from which to read documents. I would encourage people to contact the main authors, Mary Anne Burke and Margit Eichler, if they want to apply the BIAS FREE Framework.

TYPE OF HIERARCHY	MAIN PROBLEM TYPE	NATURE OF PROBLEM	SOLUTION	RESEARCH ELEMENT
Gender Disability Race/Ethnicity Age Class Caste Socio-economic status Religion Sexual orientation Geographical location Health status (among others)	H - Maintaining an existing hierarchy Is dominance of one group over the other in any way justified or maintained? Situate the problem within a human rights framework, in which equality is an underlying value. Point out the discrepancy between this value and the inequalities among groups of people that result from the hierarchy.	H1 Denying hierarchy: Is the existence of a hierarchy denied in spite of widespread evidence to the contrary?	The existence of a hierarchy is acknowledged; its validation is questioned and rejected.	Request for proposals Research proposal Literature review Ethical review Research question/hypothesis Research design Description of population to be studied Staffing Concepts Theoretical framework/model Research methods/ instruments Recruitment of participants Data analysis and interpretation Conclusions Policy recommendations Identification of audience Abstract/Executive Summary Language Visual representations Communication of results
		H2 Maintaining hierarchy: Are practices or views that are based on a hierarchy presented as normal or unproblematic?	Expressions of hierarchies are questioned and problematized.
		H3 Dominant perspective: Is the perspective or standpoint of the dominant group adopted?	The perspectives of non-dominant and dominant groups are respected and accepted.
		H4 Pathologization: Is the non-dominant group pathologized when it differs from the norms derived from the dominant group?	Challenge the norm and address the reasons given for pathologizing the group.
		H5 Objectification: Is stripping people of their intrinsic dignity and personhood presented as normal or unproblematic?	Recognize that every human being has intrinsic dignity and human rights that are inviolable and must be protected, and conduct the activity accordingly.
		H6 Victim-blaming: Are victims of individual and/or structural violence blamed and held accountable?	Victims are not blamed; individual and/or structural violence is identified; and those responsible are held accountable.
		H7Appropriation: Is ownership claimed by the dominant group for entities that originate(d) in or belong to the non dominant group?	Original ownership is acknowledged and respected.
TYPE OF HIERARCHY	MAIN PROBLEM TYPE	NATURE OF PROBLEM	SOLUTION	RESEARCH ELEMENT
Gender Disability Race/Ethnicity Age Class Caste Socio-economic status Religion Sexual orientation Geographical location Health status (among others)	F - Failing to examine differences Is membership in a non dominant/dominant group examined as socially relevant and accommodated? Establish the relevance of group membership within a given context. Once relevance is established, accommodate differences in ways that reduce the hierarchy.	F1 Insensitivity to difference: Has the relevance of membership in dominant/non-dominant group been ignored?	Relevance of dominant/non-dominant group membership must always be determined; group membership must be included as an analytical variable throughout the activity and only then can its relevance be assessed.	Request for proposals Research proposal Literature review Ethical review Research question/hypothesis Research design Description of population to be studied Staffing Concepts Theoretical framework/model Research methods/ instruments Recruitment of participants Data analysis and interpretation Conclusions Policy recommendations Identification of audience Abstract/Executive Summary Language Visual representations Communication of results
		F2 Decontextualization: Has the different social reality of dominant and non-dominant groups explicitly been considered?	The context with respect to dominant/non-dominant group membership is explicitly examined and differences following from this are identified, analysed and taken into account.
		F3 Over-generalization or universalization: Is information derived from dominant groups generalized to non-dominant groups without examining if it is applicable to the non-dominant groups?	Information about the dominant group is acknowledged as such, and efforts are made to obtain information about the non-dominant group or conclusions are limited to the dominant group.
		F4 Assumed homogeneity: Is the dominant or non dominant group treated as a uniform group?	Differences within dominant and non-dominant groups are acknowledged and taken into account.

TYPE OF HIERARCHY	MAIN PROBLEM TYPE	NATURE OF PROBLEM	SOLUTION	RESEARCH ELEMENT
Gender Disability Race/Ethnicity Age Class Caste Socio-economic status Religion Sexual orientation Geographical location Health status (among others)	D - Using double standards Are non dominant/ dominant groups dealt with differently? Identify the double standard that leads to different treatment of members of dominant and non-dominant groups and how this maintains a hierarchy; then, devise means to provide the same treatment to both groups.	D1 Overt double standard: Are non dominant and dominant groups treated differently?	Provide the same treatment to members of dominant and non-dominant groups whenever this increases equity.	Request for proposals Research proposal Literature review Ethical review Research question/hypothesis Research design Description of population to be studied Staffing Concepts Theoretical framework/model Research methods/ instruments Recruitment of participants Data analysis and interpretation Conclusions Policy recommendations Identification of audience Abstract/Executive Summary Language Visual representations Communication of results
		D2 Under representation or exclusion: Are non dominant groups under represented or excluded?	Non-dominant groups are included whenever relevant.
		D3 Exceptional under representation or exclusion: In contexts normally associated with non-dominant groups, but pertinent to all groups, is the dominant group under represented or excluded?	Dominant groups are appropriately represented in issues of relevance to them that have been stereotyped as being important only for a non-dominant group.
		D4 Denying agency: Is there a failure to consider non dominant/dominant groups as both actors and acted upon?	Examine ways in which dominant and non-dominant groups are both acting as well as acted upon.
		D5 Treating dominant opinions as facts: Are opinions expressed by a dominant group about a non dominant group treated as fact?	Opinions expressed by dominant groups about non-dominant groups are treated as opinions, not fact.
		D6 Stereotyping: Are stereotypes of non dominant/ dominant groups treated as essential aspects of group membership?	Treat stereotypes as stereotypes, not as truths.
		D7 Exaggerating differences: Are overlapping traits treated as if they were characteristic of only non dominant / dominant groups?	Document both the differences and the similarities between members of non-dominant and dominant groups.
		D8 Hidden double standard: Are different criteria used to define comparable facts with the effect of hiding their comparability?	Ask whether there might be a hidden double standard by looking for non-obvious parallels. One way of achieving this is by asking what form the phenomenon identified within one group might take within another group.

Gregor Wolbring  is an ability governance, science and technology governance,  disability  studies and health policy scholar. He isan Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences, Program in Disability Studies and Community Rehabilitation. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Adjunct Faculty, Critical Disability Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada;  Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies;  Member: Review Board of the Journal, Review in Disability Studies;  Member, International Editorial Advisory Board, Journal: Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications and is a regular contributor to the  What Sorts of People  blog.

Please contact the author for additional information on this article or for other references at gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca

© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2008. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.