Can Google search data help solve Islamophobia?

For decades, social scientists have conducted research using some combination of surveys, census data, focus groups, interviews, and observation techniques. With the exception of covert observation, which brings its own ethical issues, these methods have something in common: the dishonesty of people. These methods are all subject to human lies and therefore unable to paint a reliable picture of society’s true beliefs and darkest fears. In fact, the most objective forms of data are given up willingly, in private, where people are free from the worry of being judged. Short of stealing people’s diaries or tapping their phone calls, what else can researchers do to gather the most objective data possible?

Better than surveys

In our digital era the most obvious answer is also the correct one. But until now, few people have thought to leverage this tool and publicise their findings in such an accessible way and at such a pertinent time. What is the technology we all use to ask questions, seek validation, and search for the most outrageous things? Why of course, it’s Google. Many people would be embarrassed to publicly display their Google search history. I know mine is full of very silly things. But at the same time, these queries are deeply revealing; which is precisely why they strike a nerve. They display some of our deepest secrets. For example, a few years ago I used to get occasional panic attacks. I remember waking up at 3 am in an unfamiliar country, caught in the midst of an attack, gasping for breath. To calm myself, I searched Google for reassurance that it was ‘just’ a panic attack.

Google as ‘truth serum’

People search Google for all manner of things. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz (see below for video of his recent RSA talk), the researcher who produced this study, found many searches for terms involving ‘abortions’, ‘closet gays’, ‘penis size’, and ‘breastfeeding of husbands’ (the latter being apparently popular in India). He also found other more sinister patterns, ones suggesting American racism was far more widespread than previously thought. In fact, search data shows the idea of America as a ‘post-racial’ society, much-touted after the 2008 election of Barack Obama, to be quite absurd. Google showed American racism and Islamophobia were thoroughly alive and kicking, even in places where people didn’t publicly admit to holding racist views. They espouse very different opinions in the privacy of their own homes, face-to-face only with Google. It’s Google as ‘truth serum’. Almost ten years later, with Trump at the helm, perhaps America is finally showing its true face.

Tracking Islamophobia in searches

Obama’s address to the nation after the 2015 San Bernardino attack, provides an interesting example of how search data reflects hidden social views. In the speech, he aimed to calm outraged people and restore order to the country. In particular, he wanted to counteract the backlash that Muslim-Americans would surely face. While he was speaking of Muslims as ‘our friends’, ‘neighbours’ and so on, Google search data was telling a different story. After each terrorist attack (and this happens in the UK too) the volume of negative and violent searches about Muslims skyrockets. Islamophobic searches like ‘kill all Muslims’, become alarmingly high.

During most of Obama’s speech, these searches didn’t reduce or even level off. Instead they became even more frequent. This makes sense, because challenging people’s world views acts as an attack on their fundamental identity. In response, most will cling tighter to whatever they believe. But later in his speech, Obama changed tack. He introduced new images: not just of Muslim-Americans as friends and neighbours, who should be respected, but also of ‘Muslim soldiers’, willing to die for America, and ‘Muslim athletes’, representing the country on the world stage.

From ‘terrorists’ to soldiers and athletes

And then, something changed in the data. Islamophobic searches slowed down, to be replaced with searches for ‘Muslim athletes’, and ‘Muslim soldiers’. Something had resonated with the people searching; instead of responding predictably to Obama’s perceived ‘attack’ on their entrenched world views, they had become curious. I believe this happened for two reasons, partly because the idea of Muslims as athletes and soldiers resonated with ‘patriotic’ American audiences. But also because these images perhaps helped to ‘de-otherise’ public perceptions of Muslims. By drawing on resonant all-American themes, Obama associated Muslims with a set of positive images rather than just trying to convince wider America to accept them as a group. In response, albeit temporarily, the volume of Islamophobic searches slowed and included more positive searches.

This is encouraging in some ways, because despite the fleeting nature of this positivity, its presence suggests two important things, 1) that Islamophobia is largely a problem of perceptions, and 2) that the tide can be turned back. Negative views of Muslims have become deeply entrenched over the last three decades. Islamophobia as a public perception is regularly reinforced by mainstream media, by certain think tanks and their ‘experts’, and by reactions to the terrible deeds of ISIS; a group that has hijacked the image of Islam worldwide.

How can this data help us?

Can Google search data offer us the chance to fix some of society’s ills? Its revealing nature shows our darkest fears in a way no survey can ever do. Having this information (anonymous of course) could be used to bring issues into the open and address their root causes. In the case of Islamophobia, analysing Google searches could reveal where the gaps and misperceptions lie in wider society’s understanding of Muslims. It could allow us to categorise the fears, misunderstandings, and false perceptions. This could inform the design of social initiatives targeting specific problems, helping people understand each other better and gain a stronger sense of reality over perception.

2 comments

  1. Tahir Abbas says:

    The tools of social science are still powerful instruments in the study of human behaviour. After all, they have been developed over a considerable period, as soon as the social sciences were formalized since the 1950s onwards. If one really wishes to determine someone’s attitudes and behaviours through an in-depth semi structured interview method, based on the skill of the researcher, and the level and quality of interaction, genuinely robust, valid, generalizable and verifiable data can be generated. But I do understand it’s limitations. For example, in asking teachers about their attitudes towards children in schools, I’m trying to expose whether racism is at play. Smarter racist teachers are clearly going to be more guarded about the actual thoughts and beliefs. In asking the young students to elaborate on experiences of racism at the behest of their teachers, a considerable amount of rich and detailed information is often obtained because of the emotions around the sensitive subject, especially on the part of people who have been subjugated to racism. But the value of big data in understanding what people think and do is extremely significant. Although the science is in its infancy, it is clear that the quality of the data is rich enough to allow perceptive people to model this information using various logistic regression modelling to come up with quite clever inferences as well as make theoretical inroads. The idea that newspapers respond to the prejudices of their consumers by providing more prejudice for these readers in order for them to stay loyal to that particular press is an interesting phenomenon. The conventional wisdom would suggest that dominant capital, which is the power that newspapers have in terms of their ability to spread their message wide and far, shapes the discourse. But the author of the book here is suggesting that this is the other way around. I’m very much looking forward to further developments in this field and the use of big data across the social sciences more generally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *