View Single Post
11-05-2012, 05:40 AM
Registered User
Canadiens1958's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,277
vCash: 500
Researcher Bias

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Unfortunately, 3 different people seeing the same hockey game will have 3 slightly different takes on the game as well.

First hand accounts are usefull but should also be taken into perspective as well.

It's kind of funny but some of the modern day experts can be vilified, even ridiculed here, guys from the Hockey News and Stan Fischler, but most everything from the way off past is taken as close to truth or absolute fact (since we don't have the eyeball test or other ways of discounting it like we do for players and games we have seen)
Modern researcher bias or the quick fix approach. Specifically there is an agenda - not necessarily a bad thing, and an objective.

Example, goalies, find stories about goalies X and Y. Google newspaper search will generate an adequate array, so a superficial quantity and conclusion ae presented.

But no one researches the writer or author of the stories to get a feel for their perspective of hockey during their era, over time. Were they traditionalists or forward thinkers, could they appreciate or explain the technical aspects or inner workings of the game, were they homers - most were or regionalists - good old northern Ontario players,etc.

Net result is that the reliability of witnessed accounts gets questioned instead of understanding how and why the interpretations of events were reached.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote