Objectivity Of The Social Researcher

Objectivity Of The Social ResearcherBefore addressing the debate, the historical signifi tin cance of companionable theory must be addressed as there is a long history regarding issues of objectivity, and nurture free seek. Prior to World War Two, social look was dominated by the paradigm of positivism. Philosophers such(prenominal) as Comte (1798-1857) strongly affirmed that methods applied to the natural sciences such as physics should be applied to the study of social behaviour (Benton Craib, 2001). The positivist view placed great emphasis on the objectivity of social question, accepting Science as the only general form of knowledge that produces reliable social scientific knowledge that can be generated into theory applicable to social behaviour within society (Benton Craib, 2001 23). Moreover, like the natural sciences it requires both logical and empiric support. Causal relationships can be identified and truths can be falsified thus, positivist sociology assumes tha t law-like generalisations can be derived from social research Pedraza (2002 75). Postivism was widely accepted throughout the ordinal centuary as science was assumed to be the highest form of knowledge, thus by applying the methodologies of the natural science to the newborn social sciences allowed for some level of acceptance. As farthermost as objectivity is concerned, positivist methodological go ones claim that objectivity is an ideal that is attainable, as the social realtiy of society can be observed it without any antecedents. As a result, the aim of the social scientist is to be exogenously detached from the research subject.Turning to Weber (WEBERREF) alternated the direction of social research claiming that although social research should be value free, obtaining completely objective research was impossible. This is simply because researchers are subjective mans. Weber coined the term value free sociology and urged that sociologists need to be unconfined by private value if it was to make a positive contribution towards society. Weber recognised that personal values would to some extent influence research topics but support objectivity in exploring a topic once chosen. For Weber, value freedom is then a non-judgemental analysis of society in its own terms. Although Weber advocated this approach to social research, it must be acknowledged that values can enter research in a variety of ways ranging from the choice of research area, conceptualisation of the research question methodology including data collection, analysis of data interpretation of data and overall conclusions (Bryman, 2008).Following from Weber the epistemological position of positivism has been overtly critiqued by various theorists, incidently those who take an ontological, interpretivist stance. For example, Becker (1964 245) argues that, there is no position from which sociological research can be done that is non biased in one way or another. Therefore, social research c annot be completely objective as researchers can unknowingly contaminate their exploration of an issue with values developed throughout their own biography. Furthermore, Becker (1964) claims that, sociologists must either write from the position of a superordinate or from that of a subordinate (Lawson, 1991 591). In addressing this claim, Becker (1964) discusses the credibility of government agency structure which explores the notion that social assemblages whom are perceived to be superior within a authorisen society are in a position of power that can define the rules of society. The exclusivity of the natural sciences within society is an example of this. Becker (1964 242) goes on to surmise that sociologists challenge this rule by refusing to acknowledge the established status determine in which it is surmised that the truth of knowledge is unequally distributed. Therein, Becker suggests that social research should focus on the underdog in order to reform knowledge distribut ion.This is similar to the view that has been taken up by feminists such has Hartstock (2004 7) who place emphasis on relativist standpoint theories whereby knowledge is shaped by power relations, that it is socially situated. Therefore those oppressed can give the best account fo the internal workings of their group. Hartstock (2004) attains that prior to feminist sociology, research disciplines and public policy did not account for women as group with their own knowledge. For Hartsock (2004), any social research that does not address the unequal distribution of knowledge, is and so, potentially skewed. Thus drawing upon the Marxist notion of historic philistinism standpoint theorists such as Hartstock (2004) and Harding (DATE) chose to address this with the aim of exercising social research from the position or standpoint of women. It can be surmised from this perspective that it is therefore it is impossible for a social researcher to extract themselves from power relations in their own situation. Therefore the feminist approach strongly advocates that objectivity should not be the primary aim of a social investigation. Rather, it is important for researchers to adopt a stance and con military positionr how their values will influence their research. In addition, it should be recognised that feminist researchers shape the results of their analyses no less than do those of sexist and androcentric researchers. The objectivist stance should be avoided as it attempts to make the researchers cultural beliefs and practices invisible, while simultaneously skewering the research objects, beliefs and practices to the display board (Harding, 19879).What are the arguments against this?GOULDNERGouldner is in consensus with Becker that social research cannot be value free unless he openly criticises Beckers claiming that Becker does not address the reasons why sociologists are more inclined to take the side of the underdog. Furthermore Gouldner asserts that is not a lways the case,the manner which some sociologists conceive the value-free doctrine disposes them to ignore current human problems and to huddle together like old men seeking mutual warmth. This is not our job, they say, and if it were we would now know enough to do it. (Gouldner, 1973 13)It is clear that subjectivity poses a severe limitation for the positivist objective approach to social research. For Gouldner, however, the positivist approach posed another extensive problem, it was useful to those young, or not so young, men who live off sociology rather than for it, and who think of sociology as a way of getting ahead in the world by providing them with neutral techniques that whitethorn be sold on the open market to any buyer (Gouldner, 1973 12). In others word Gouldner saw self interest as a fibrous motivator the outcome of research being affected by the scope in what it is undertaken. Thus the social researcher is not necessarily on the side of the underdog.In laymen terms Lawson (1991) suggests that the crux of this debate is the question of whether sociologists are allied with the state, accepting the state as the overall authority or should they adapt a more ethical, moral role in addressing social problems of society. Ultimately social researchers are divided by this dilemma that as Gouldner suggests, depends on the social context of the researcher. What Gouldner recognises is that the attempt of sociologists to draw upon the natural sciences to obtain an objective approach does not entirely fit with social studies and that the institutions in which professional sociologists consult such as government, academia and business can have a profound effect on a researchers values.Parsonian sociologists such as Haak (1994) and Hammersely (2000) are critical on views promoted by Becker and Gouldner arguing that that the politicisation of social research is not only misguided, but inherently dangerous, and that an intelligent and sceptical commitment to t he principles of objectivity and value neutrality must retain an essential feature of social research (back cover). Hamersley (2000) promotes the idea of value-free, objective social research placing emphasis on academia as the key institution to producing knowledge. insofar the University as a place for producing knowledge itself is under threat. This can be demonstrated by addressing the tragedy of the anticommons.ANTICOMMONS 300In response to Hardings Tragedy of the super acid whereby a resource is exploited by overuse, (HellerRosenburg1998)) address the notion of the anticommons where upstream and downstream technologies are compatible for the development of a new product yet the technology is patentable and ownership is fragmented thus the price of the new product becomes high and its consumption ends up being small or there is a gridlock in the development of the productsEXAMPLE OF ANTICOMMONS This is not objective research if the notion is to make profit 250This situatio n can be directly perceived by examining changes within university systems. For example, in Japan, national universities that conduct public research have transitioned to University Corporations by which there is an emphasis in profiteering from any innovations it whitethorn develop (Nishijima, 2004). fit to Nishijima (2004) the Japanese ministry of education has advocated universities to acquire patents of innovations and to partake in research activities with private organisations such as corporations.through establishing Technology License Office for the past a fewer(prenominal) years. The transition of National University to University Corporation implies that results of basic research will suddenly change from public goods to private goods and that the anticommons problem will emerge in the product innovation where basic research and development of new products are complementary.In the case of National University, there seems no consensus (no argument so far) on how economis ts should enounce the objective function of national university.10 Even if we assume that national university behaves as if it maximized a particular objective function such as probability of research success subject to budget and other constraints, equilibrium variables of national university will not be far from those arbitrarily given, as long as the particular objective function is not convincing. Therefore we have no choice but to exogenously give particular values to variablesThus as Oliver (1992) ascribes, social research are sometimes forced to take sides as funding bodies are not willing to take risks and support user-controlled research.The point that Gouldner (1973) puts across is that sociology should focus on social change therefore it must take sides. Essentially, Marx emphasised the need for social research to contribute to social change,The Standpoint of the old materialism is complaisant society the stand point of the new is human society, or social humanity. The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways the point is to change it. (Eastman, 1935)like Marx, Gouldner (1973) believed that sociology should count towards human emancipation thus Gouldner became a strong believer in public sociology.REFLEXIVITY 300The notion of reflexivity. Researchers must give an indication of the purpose of their research and how they have come to partake in such researchThis illustrates some of the factors that can affect social research. Namely, the need for profit.PARSONIAN SOCIOLOGY ARGUES FOR EPISTIMOLICAL explore DISCUSSBURAWOY PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE THAT ACT AND THOSE WHO DONTAs Burawoy (2005 324) asserts the possibility for public sociology comes from sociologys spontaneous connection to its reflexive relation with civil society. Burawoy clearly recognises that sociology in itself is a reflexive paradigm and suggests that it clearly needs to move from ideological theory to commitment to action. In a sense B urawoy (2005 325) advocates that social research must take sides claiming like Marx and Gouldner that society should place human society or social humanity at its organising centre.200 wordsWhilst this debate continues, a few conclusions can be drawn from this essay. Firstly, it is near impossible for social researchers to complete value free research. There are several factors that account for this. Namely as Gouldner asserts, the social context in which research is conducted. Secondly, It would seem that social research is clearly divided by professional and public sociology. Thus it is not a case of whether or not to take sides but more a case of which side our values empower us to choose. Those inclined towards professional sociology may attain that objectivity is not compromised whereas those inclined towards public sociology may recognise that it can be and even more so, that it is necessary to evoke humanitarian changes.