Bias in communication

Earlier in the course, we explored how bias can influence judgement and decision-making, often without people being aware of it.

Here, we are going to focus on one particular part of that picture: the language we use when communicating information.

Small choices in wording can affect how a message is interpreted. For example, communication might:

• express more certainty than the evidence supports
• use emotionally loaded or judgemental language
• make assumptions about what the reader already knows
• include information that is not necessary or relevant
• use wording that could be interpreted in different ways

These choices are not necessarily deliberate. They can arise through everyday working practices, particularly when people are communicating quickly, working under pressure or using language that is familiar within their own professional environment.

Why does this matter?

Throughout the course, we have seen how information moves between different people and professional groups. The way that information is communicated can influence what happens next, from decisions about lines of enquiry to how evidence is understood and presented.

This is why it can be useful to reflect not only on what we communicate, but how we communicate it.

This version does three things that I think work better for Module E:

• It acknowledges previous learning rather than repeating the definition of bias.
• It moves quickly into language and written communication, giving Module E its own purpose.
• It removes the longer list of investigators, lawyers, judges, juries and the public, because you've already established throughout the MOOC that digital evidence passes between different audiences.

Consider these two statements

Both statements may describe the same situation. However, the first statement introduces an explanation for what happened and implies intent. The second focuses only on what was observed.

Neither statement automatically becomes right or wrong. The important point is that different wording can encourage different interpretations.

The challenge: recognising it in our own writing

It can be difficult to recognise these issues in our own writing.

When we write reports, emails or summaries, we often focus on what we want to communicate rather than how our words may be interpreted by others.

This is particularly challenging in fast-moving professional environments where accuracy, efficiency and clarity all need to be balanced.

How can we support clearer communication?

This raises an important question:

How can we help people recognise language that may influence interpretation before information is shared?

One answer is the use of tools designed to support clearer communication.

In the next step, we will explore how the Clarus Clarity Checker was developed to help users review their writing and reflect on how language choices may affect understanding.

Move to the next page by clicking the arrow on the top right to move to the next page in this section.

How to use the Clarity Checker:

Technology that Supports People, Not Replaces Them

When new technologies are introduced, people sometimes worry that they will replace human expertise or remove professional judgement from important decisions.

The Clarus Clarity Checker was not designed for this purpose.

Instead, it was created to support people in making better-informed decisions about their own communication.

Why human judgement still matters

Communication is highly contextual.

A sentence that may be appropriate in one situation may be inappropriate in another. A phrase that appears biased in isolation may be entirely reasonable when considered alongside the surrounding contextual information.

This means that no automated tool can fully understand every situation.

Human expertise remains essential for deciding:

• What information should be included.

• How evidence should be described.

• Whether feedback is relevant.

• Whether changes should be made.

The Clarity Checker can identify patterns and provide suggestions, but it cannot understand a case in the same way a human practitioner can.

Reflection

A second pair of eyes

One way to think about the Clarity Checker is as a second pair of eyes.

When we write something ourselves, it can be difficult to notice weaknesses in our own communication. We already know what we intended to say, which can make it harder to recognise how others might interpret our words.

The Clarity Checker helps by encouraging users to pause and reflect before sharing information with others.

In this way, the tool supports greater awareness rather than automated decision making.

Transparency and Accountability

Keeping the user in control

Another advantage of this approach is transparency.

Some technologies produce outputs without clearly explaining how conclusions were reached.

The Clarity Checker takes a different approach. It:

• highlights language

• explains why it has been flagged

• leaves the final decision with the user

This helps ensure that responsibility remains with the person creating the communication rather than with the technology itself.

A Collaboration Between People and Technology

The most effective use of technology is often not replacement but collaboration.

The Clarity Checker combines computational analysis with human expertise:

• The technology helps identify patterns that may otherwise be overlooked.

• The user provides context, professional knowledge and judgement.

Together, these strengths can support clearer communication and more informed decision making.

Move to the next page by clicking the arrow on the top right to move to the next page in this section.

The Clarus Clarity Checker was developed to support communication relating to digital evidence. However, many of the challenges it addresses are not unique to digital forensic work. Any situation involving complex information, important decisions or specialist terminology can benefit from clear communication. 

For this reason, the Clarity Checker has potential value for a wide range of users. 

Beyond digital forensics 

While the Clarity Checker was developed through research into digital forensic communication, its underlying message is much broader. 

Clear communication helps people understand information more accurately. 

It supports transparency, reduces misunderstanding and encourages informed decision making. 

Whether writing a forensic report or a workplace email, the ability to communicate clearly remains an important skill.

Move to the next page by clicking the arrow on the top right to move to the next page in this section.