History Matters (& So Does Confirmation Bias)

The first major research project I ever worked on covered Vietnam protests on southern university campuses. I picked the topic based off my assumption that the influence of smaller state-level campuses, like that of UGA, was underrepresented in the narrative surrounding student demonstrations of the late 1960s and early 1970s. I committed one of the great sins of historical research in this process—finding sources that proved my thesis rather than basing a thesis off of sources. This mistake is better known as confirmation bias—the tendency to only seek out evidence that aligns with what you already believe while ignoring conflicting information. In essence, this approach undermines the credibility of your research and can lead to a distorted or incomplete understanding of history.

In my opinion, history is about uncovering the truth, not proving a predetermined point. If you start with a conclusion and then selectively choose sources to support it, you are shaping history to fit your argument rather than letting the evidence guide your interpretation. This is not how proper historical research is supposed to work. Instead, historians analyze a variety of sources, some of which that support and some of which that contradict their ideas, in order to develop an objective understanding of the past.

I was aware of this concept, and yet, I still made the mistake. While I do believe my original assumption was correct, and the essay that it ultimately produced is currently pending publication, my error created a massive headache. Fixing confirmation bias, especially in historical research, requires conscious effort. In my case, I was totally convinced of my point of view, and it even contradicted current historical understanding—meaning (at least in my head) that I had made a brand new historical discovery. Obviously, a second-year undergrad is not going to produce a paper that reorients the current academic understanding of the Cold War, but I guess I was a little naive. Luckily, my professor (and his TA) pointed out the flaws in my prospectus* before I even had the chance to advance my research.

Despite my mistakes however, I continued on with my research at UGA's Special Collections. Eventually, I was able to produce a quality essay. It took time and patience and a whole lot of mental fatigue. In the end, I had to slightly change the direction that my thesis went in, but a lesson was learned. From then on, I approached research questions differently. Before diving head first into research, I ask myself a series of questions: "Why do I believe this?", "Am I alone in this belief?", "What evidence exists that may prove me wrong?", and "Am I being fair in my evaluation?" I am also more judgmental of my sources, and have my eyes peeled for purpose or bias. Ultimately, I began to see the goal of historical research differently. I no longer saw it as "winning" an argument, but rather I wanted to understand and explain the past as accurately as possible.

In short, even beyond academics, history gives us a sense of perspective. It shows us that progress is not always linear, that societies rise and fall, and that human nature remains both inspiring and flawed. As a result, research is hard yet rewarding. Without the analyzation of our history, the growth of our historical knowledge would cease. To prevent this, we need to make sure we study history in the right ways, and, in spite of the challenges that may arise, we should never be deterred.