The BIAS FREE Framework Database
A net-based searchable database of bias problems identified during applications of the BIAS FREE Framework
Note to Contributors:
Thank you for your interest in submitting example(s) for use in examining and eliminating biases that derive from social hierarchies. If this is the first time you are submitting example(s) to the BIAS FREE Framework Database, here are some basic guidelines to help smooth the process
Process for submissions:
Step 1 - Submit
The first step is to fill in the Submission Form below. An electronic copy of the submission form is also available from the database manager. Once you have completed the Submission form, send it to the database manager by email:
Once you submit your example to the database, the Database Manager will conduct a review of your example, checking for accuracy, completeness, and adherence to requirements related to copyrighted materials as necessary.
Step 2 - Review
If any changes are required, the Database Manager will consult with you to discuss the proposed changes. The review process is not meant to censor or criticize the contributor. Rather, it is a process of working with contributors to generate credible examples that can be used by others to improve their work.
NB: As a rule:
· Examples you submit will not be visible in the database until the Database Manager has verified them
· Any submissions that will be considered to be libel and/or slander will NOT be posted to the BIAS FREE Framework Database
· Where an example involves an extensive quote from copyrighted material, permission to post the material on the database will have to be sought from the copyright holder, before we can post it to the database. Please indicate if you have received permission from the copyright holder, or if we will need to pursue this. We will contact you to obtain a copy of your letter of permission if you have one available.
Step 3 - Post
Once your submission has been verified by the Database Manager, it will be posted to the database for others to read.
Format for Submissions:
Please submit your example using the simple format in the Submission Form below. Please be clear and concise in the formulation of the problem and how you would propose to address it. The information you provide should be interesting to others and make them want to learn more. Remember the best example in the database is of little value if no one reads it.
To assist you in filling out this form, [more detailed instructions are provided on pages 6-9 of this document]. Samples of some completed forms with problem examples are also included to help guide you through the process, beginning on page 10 of this document.
Submission Form
1. Title of the problem example
2. Type of hierarchy [See page 6
for detailed instructions]
4. Main problem [See page 6 for detailed instructions]
5. Sub-problem [See page 6 for detailed instructions]
6. Type of application [See page 6 for detailed instructions]
7. Description of the problem
9. Solution
10. Type of Source
11.Reference(s) [See page 9 for detailed instructions]
12. Submitters name:
E-mail address:
Organization (if applicable)
Please note: We accept submissions that fall under two categories a) the contributor's analysis of their own work or that of someone else, either published or in the grey literature, but for which a bibliographic reference is available AND b) the contributor's analysis of a personal experience (for which no bibliographic reference exists).
By submitting example(s), a contributor assumes full responsibility for any actions taken to distribute the work and to allow it to be redistributed. A critique should of course be poignant but presented in a respectful way.
Detailed instructions for Submission Form
3. Type of Hierarchy: Please choose one or more of the following. Note that if you choose more than one, you will need to address each in your description of the problem and in your solution.
1. Gender
2. Disability
3. Race/Ethnicity
4. Age
5. Class
6. Caste
7. Socio-economic status
8. Religion
9. Sexual orientation
10. Geographical location
11. Health status
12. Bureaucracy
13. Other, please
specify______.
4. Main problem: Please choose one or more of the following. Note that if you choose more than one, you will need to identify the specific nature of the problem for each, and address each in your description of the problem and in your solution.
H - Maintaining an existing hierarchy
F - Failure to examine the differences
D - Using double standard
5. Sub-problem: Please identify the nature of the problem by choosing one or more of the H1 to H7, F1 to F4, or D1 to D8 questions in the BIAS FREE Framework, see attachment. Note that if you choose more than one, you will need to address each in your description of the problem and in your solution.
6. Type of Application: Please choose one or more of the following. Note that if you choose more than one, you will need to address each in your description of the problem and in your solution.
1. Research
2. Legislation
3. Policy
4. Programme
5. Service delivery
6. Practice
7. Organization
11. Reference(s)
The following are examples of the expected format for citations/bibliographic information:
Journal citations:
Eichler, Margrit, & Burke, Mary Anne. The BIAS FREE Framework: A new analytical tool for global health research. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2006; 97(1):63-68.
Book citations:
Eichler, Margrit (1991). Nonsexist research methods. A practical guide. New York: Routledge.
Book chapter citations
Eichler, Margrit (1994). Reflections on the "Temporary use of normal functioning uteri". In Gwen Basen, Margrit Eichler & Abby Lippman (Eds.), Misconceptions. The social construction of choice and the new reproductive and genetic technologies (Vol. 2, pp. 193-215). Maple Pond: Voyageur Publishing.
1. Title of the problem example / Concept “participatory approach” in malaria control
2. Type of hierarchy / Research
3. Main problem / Using double standards
4. Sub-problem / Under-representation or exclusion (D2)
5. Type of application / Research
6. Description of the problem
Malaria kills 1 million people every year and is estimated to cause at least 300 million cases of illness and suffering each year. Pregnant women and children under age five are most at risk of severe malaria. Recent calculations show that malaria accounts for 20% of all under-five mortality in Africa and is the leading killer of African children. Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) have great potential to complement other malaria control strategies, as they provide considerable protection against malaria to these vulnerable groups.
A recent project implemented ITNs over a large area in one of the African countries. The research protocol states that the project uses a participatory approach, so that community members, their leaders, the health personnel and all other stakeholders can participate in planning the details of the project implementation.
In fact the interest of the project was to test “the biomedically established efficacy”, which was pre-defined by the biomedical research scientists. It was hoped that the project aims would be in agreement with all other scientists and in the “best interest of the villagers” without being tested or questioned. Since the community leaders, community members and other significant members at community level were not consulted about their priorities and needs prior to the implementation stage, they confronted the project team with distrust on the relevancy of the project in general and ITNs in particular. From their perspective, malaria is not perceived as a life threatening disease but one of the common fevers that attacks all people of all ages and can easily be treated by antimalarial drugs that are sold on local shops.
The explicit use of the concept “participatory approach” in the project document, which claimed to address community needs and priorities, although, in reality, there was not any input from the community during the planning phase, is a clear example of a D2 problem: Under-representation or exclusion of the intended beneficiaries from participating in the project. The hierarchy is the research hierarchy, with researchers as the dominant group, and the community members being researched, the non-dominant group
9. Solution
In operational research, especially in projects or programmes that explicitly claim to use a participatory approach, and to avoid distrust and waste of valuable and limited resources, community members, their leaders and other significant community members should actually be consulted and involved in all relevant parts of the projects, from planning, to implementation to governance.
10. Source: Personal experience
11. Reference(s) N/A
12. Submitter's Name: Happiness Minja
E-mail address:
Phone numbers: 255 22 2774709
Organization: Ifakara Health Research & Development Centre
Example Two
1. Title of the problem example / Job discrimination2. Type of hierarchy / Race/ethnicity
3. Main problem / Using double standard
4. Sub-problem / Overt double standard
5. Type of application / Policy
6. Longer description of the problem
The Globe and Mail reported on February 24, 2007 (Peritz, 2007) that Kamal El Batal, an agronomist originally from Morocco, applied 15 times for a position at one of the largest agricultural co-operatives in Quebec (a province of Canada). He was never called for an interview. He speaks four languages, belongs to the Quebec Order of Agronomists, and has a master’s degree in rural economics from a Quebec university and an MBA in finance from another Quebec university.
Fed up, he submitted his resume under the fake name of Marc Tremblay. Tremblay is a very common family name in Quebec. He got a call from the personnel office of the co-operative two weeks later, was interviewed, and was told that he gave an excellent job interview. He then called again, two days later, under his own name. “He was told that interviews hadn’t started, and besides, ‘I didn’t fit the profile they were looking for.’”
This is an example of an overt double standard (D1) on the basis of ethnicity
9. Solution
El Batal complained to the Human Rights Commission, which ruled fours years after he filed his complaint that he had been the victim of discrimination and that he should be paid $15,000 in damages. He is now a candidate for a political party.
Further response
Addressing this problem in principle would be neither simple nor quick. It would involve both a check and possible re-vamping of existing hiring policies to ensure that the best qualified candidates, regardless of place of origin, would be invited for interviews, but it would also have to involve intensive training of the all personnel officers in applying the new policies appropriately. The article does not provide the information whether the policy or the attitude of the personnel manager or both are at fault.
10. Source Newspaper article
11. Reference(s)
Peritz, I. (2007, February 24). Job snub inspires candidate to run. Globe and
Mail, p.a11.
12. Submitter's Name: Margrit Eichler
E-mail address:
Phone numbers: 416-978-0593
Organization: Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education
OISE/University of Toronto
For further information on
The BIAS FREE Framework
Please contact the authors:
Mary Anne Burke Margrit Eichler
BIAS FREE Co-operative BIAS FREE Co-operative
1