Objectivity

• What is Objectivity  
• Meaning Objectivity
• Objectivity in Natural Sciences
• Objectivity in Social Sciences
• Causal Relation in Social Science Research
• Importance of Objectivity in Social science
• Factors Affecting Objectivity

Introduction

The primary principle upheld in scientific research is objectivity, aimed at mitigating researchers’ biases. Biases can stem from various uncontrollable factors, especially in studies involving human subjects. For instance, conducting experiments to test a theory on how riots affect group decision-making by deliberately inciting riots is ethically impractical. Consequently, examining riots only post-occurrence introduces extraneous variables, potentially distorting the cause-effect relationship and skewing research outcomes. Despite these challenges, researchers can promote objectivity by adhering to ethical and professional standards pertinent to their field.

It’s evident that natural sciences inherently possess a greater degree of objectivity compared to social sciences, and this distinction is likely to endure. Preserving this contrast is vital to maintain the relevance of social sciences in everyday contexts. Nonetheless, efforts should be directed towards maximizing objectivity within social sciences without striving to match the precise level found in natural sciences. The objective is to pursue objectivity while respecting and safeguarding the essential distinctions that contribute to the unique objectives of social sciences.

This chapter emphasizes the significance of objectivity in social sciences while acknowledging the importance of a balanced approach that preserves the distinct purposes of social sciences vis-à-vis natural sciences. Objectivity remains an admirable pursuit, but not at the expense of the core objectives of social sciences.

Meaning of Objectivity

What constitutes objectivity within the realm of social science? How does one interpret the claim that a particular theory represents an unbiased scientific examination of various social phenomena? Discussions on the objectivity of social science often involve the synthesis of diverse perspectives.

It is posited that there exist social realities that exist independently of the concepts and theories formulated by scientists, thereby suggesting the presence of an objective social realm (ontological objectivity).

The validity of a theory concerning a specific set of social phenomena is often judged by the presence of sound reasoning, supported by empirical evidence and theoretical coherence.

• Social realities are perceived as being independent of the conscious states of individuals.
• Scientific inquiry strives to be devoid of values and personal interests.
• Over time, scientific inquiry tends to converge toward a consensus among researchers regarding the nature of the world, as a result of ongoing empirical and theoretical investigations.

From the preceding information, it can be argued that objectivity refers to the absence of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Maintaining objectivity is crucial for a judge, for instance. The term’s association with the word “object” aids in remembering its meaning. While being objective toward individuals or pets might be challenging, it is easier when dealing with inanimate objects. It is simpler to maintain objectivity toward a box of rocks than toward a pet, such as my dog.

Objectivity stands as a cornerstone in philosophical discourse, intricately linked with concepts of reality and truth, yet its interpretation varies across different sources. Essentially, objectivity denotes the state or quality of being true irrespective of personal biases, interpretations, emotions, and imagination—a stark departure from subjectivity. It encompasses the practice of making judgments grounded solely in observable phenomena, devoid of emotional influence or individual prejudices.

Within this framework, objectivity demands that conclusions drawn from inquiries and investigations remain impartial. Subjective biases in research often emerge from personal motives, cultural norms, and social contexts. These biases manifest from a myriad of sources, including but not limited to personal ambition, societal divisions, religious affiliations, geographic factors and political leanings. Vigilance against such biases is imperative for genuine researchers.

Attaining objectivity necessitates a continuous effort to eliminate personal judgments and present arguments universally valid to all minds. The objective observer must navigate through subjective inclinations, acknowledging the inherent values held by individuals within society.

Meaning of Objectivity in Natural Sciences and Social Sciences

The core essence of “objectivity” revolves around how inquiry is conducted to maximize the likelihood of reaching truthful conclusions. However, this term encompasses various nuanced meanings, which can be clarified by examining its adjectival and adverbial forms:

Firstly, as an adjective, “objective” describes phenomena in the world, implying their existence rather than being mere appearances or products of imagination.

Secondly, “objectivity” can indicate that something relates to the external world, distinct from the internal psychological realm of a subject. While objects like tables and chairs are considered objective, thoughts and feelings are not, despite both potentially being real rather than mere appearances.

Thirdly, in a broader context, objectivity is a complex concept. It may refer to the relationship between research methodology and society or encompass the dynamics between the researcher and the researched. While achieving objectivity and detachment may be challenging and undesirable in certain scenarios, it may be seen as virtuous in others. Some argue that research findings lose value if the planning, collection, analysis and interpretation of data stem from personal preferences and biases.

Objectivity in Natural Sciences

In the natural sciences, objectivity encompasses two main concepts:

Firstly, it involves reaching a consensus among observers regarding their observations. For example, a group of scientists studying the behavior of objects in free fall would collectively agree that they observe the objects descending to the ground. To achieve this level of objectivity:

1. Consensus on a standardized approach is crucial, such as dropping an object.
2. Replicability of the phenomenon is essential, meaning that releasing multiple objects should result in consistent gravitational descent.
3. The outcome should be consistent regardless of who performs the operation or where it occurs, ensuring uniform behavior for all observers worldwide. Clear articulation of scientific procedures enables replication. This aspect of objectivity is termed “inter-subjectivity” and is vital for robust scientific explanations.

The second aspect of objectivity in science pertains to the idea that scientific explanations should not be influenced by the values, opinions, attitudes or beliefs of the researcher. Put simply, scientific explanations aim to be “value-free.” While a researcher’s values may guide their choice of study subject, once the research problem is established, personal values and opinions should not influence the knowledge generated. The goal of science is to attain a state of being value-free, striving to free scientific explanations from individual or group biases and opinions.

Objectivity in Social Sciences

The concept of “social science” encompasses a diverse array of academic fields, including history, economics, political science, sociology and others. Each discipline within this umbrella employs its own set of methodologies and techniques. It’s worth noting that these disciplines lack a unified approach; for example, historical inquiry differs significantly from economic analysis. Despite occasional assertions suggesting a unified front in sociology, there isn’t a singular method that binds all social sciences together.

Social science encompasses the study of society and its evolution, spanning various disciplines like anthropology, education, economics, international relations, political science, history, geography, psychology, law, and criminology. Anthropology explores humanity’s historical journey, economics examines theories surrounding the creation, distribution, and consumption of wealth, while geography addresses both physical and human landscapes. History, within the realm of social science, delves into past human events.

In contrast, natural sciences explore the intricacies of the natural world using scientific methodologies. It’s crucial to recognize that natural sciences employ scientific methods to analyze natural phenomena and conditions.

Max Weber proposed that the disparities between natural and social sciences arise from differences in the cognitive objectives of researchers, rather than any inherent incapacity of scientific and generalizing methods to be applied to human behaviour. The contrast lies not in investigative methods but in the interests and objectives of the scientists. Both natural and social sciences involve abstraction and selection due to the immense complexity of facts in both nature and history.

Scientific methods, whether applied broadly or tailored to specific cases, face the challenge of navigating the vast complexity of empirical reality. Natural scientists concentrate on abstract laws governing natural phenomena, while social scientists explore patterns in human behaviour alongside the unique qualities and meanings attached to individual actions. Neither approach holds inherent superiority; each can be justified as long as it acknowledges its limitations in capturing the full breadth of phenomena.

Sociology, like other academic disciplines, employs distinct methodologies to analyze society. Each social science discipline integrates theory and method, often employing empirical or hypothetico-deductive approaches that distinguish them from the natural sciences.

The pursuit of scientific inquiry, whether within sociology or other domains, is often framed as the quest for impartial knowledge, free from personal biases or prejudices. However, this notion is subject to debate. Some argue that achieving objectivity in sociology is possible, while others question its attainability.

In essence, objectivity is utilized to mitigate personal biases and ensure an accurate portrayal of social reality, rather than being swayed by the researcher’s interpretations or perspectives. This debate has divided social scientists, with one camp advocating for objectivity and another contesting it. Proponents of objectivity stress the importance of maintaining value neutrality, while opponents lean towards a more normative stance. Implicit in this discourse is the idea that researchers should strive to minimize their biases, positioning social scientists as impartial analysts or advisors rather than advocates for social change.

Ensuring objectivity in research requires the exclusion of the researcher’s personal opinions and biases. This involves adhering to certain principles:

• Social science should focus on analyzing existing phenomena rather than prescribing ideal outcomes, aligning theory and research with the goal of objectivity.
• Social scientists are advised to remain objective by avoiding subjective perspectives, biases, and personal convictions.
• While politicians may engage in value judgments due to their understanding of complex social dynamics, social scientists typically refrain from normative stances.

Counterarguments to absolute objectivity include:

• The pursuit of objectivity can sometimes justify maintaining the status quo without questioning its validity. Acknowledging the influence of personal beliefs and emotions is crucial.
• Social scientists may need to engage with societal issues from a values-based perspective to effectively address challenges.
• Core values shape our perspective and actions, underscoring their significance in research.
• It’s safer to acknowledge personal biases than to pretend impartiality.
• The social sciences inherently involve normative elements, balancing between neutrality and normativism.

The assertion suggests that while complete objectivity may be challenging, maintaining some level of impartiality is possible and beneficial, particularly in data collection and research planning, where independence from personal biases is crucial.

Causal Correlation in Social Science

The empirical approach to establishing causal relationships, even in its most fundamental state, unavoidably involves the utilization of conceptual frameworks. When we analyze causality, we designate certain occurrences as causes and specific sequences as effects, a process intrinsically reliant on applying concepts. Through this approach, raw occurrences evolve into meaningful categories, constructing the cause-and-effect connection through groups of categorized elements.

In the social sphere, causality holds a nuanced significance compared to the natural realm, chiefly because cause-and-effect relationships lack universal applicability. What acts as a cause for a particular outcome within a specific context may not produce the same result in other circumstances, contrasting with the more consistent patterns of causation observed in the natural world. The dynamics between cause and effect in social contexts are notably more adaptable.

Moreover, in social contexts, the distinction between cause and effect is not straightforward and impersonal. The assignment of distinct occurrences as cause or effect is greatly influenced by the observer’s interpretations, preferences, inclinations, and biases. The observer’s values play a pivotal role in determining which elements are identified as cause or effect, even during the establishment of causal connections. Unlike empirical theories in natural sciences, theories concerning humanity and society are not solely validated or invalidated based on empirical evidence; instead, empirical evidence often aligns with these theories. Consequently, theories in social sciences exhibit a preference-laden characteristic, presenting value judgments disguised as definitions.

While physical theories evolve in response to new empirical evidence, social theories remain largely unaffected by such discoveries. For instance, concepts like the indivisible theory of sovereignty or the social contract theory in political and social obligations remain impervious to empirical validation or refutation. Instead, these theories operate as expressions of underlying values, shaped by personal preferences and interests.

Acknowledging this, it becomes clear that the study of society, rooted in these theories, cannot be devoid of values. All social sciences center around the human experience, with individuals serving as the focal point of inquiry. Although humans are inherently physical beings, social sciences primarily focus on the intangible constructs such as ideas, aspirations, and beliefs, which transcend the material realm. Thus, inquiries into human society, even when seemingly objective, are inherently imbued with values, exploring fundamental aspects of human existence and destiny.

Conclusion: In summary, the essence of society and social action lies in their inherent values, as society is fundamentally driven by human values. Attempts to divorce social sciences from the consideration of values and align them solely with natural sciences are misguided. Objectivity, which emphasizes a methodology free from researcher biases, is crucial in both natural and social sciences. However, the varying levels of objectivity between these disciplines arise from their distinct subject matters. The term “social” in social sciences highlights the challenge they face in achieving a comparable level of objectivity.

Max Weber made commendable efforts to establish objectivity as a standard in social science studies, a pursuit continued by subsequent scholars. Nevertheless, the outbreak of World War II prompted social scientists to reflect on the consequences of an excessive focus on objectivity. This led to a more balanced perspective, recognizing objectivity as valuable but not the sole criterion. Social sciences should not be regarded as inferior due to the inherent subjectivity in their research, as they play a unique role in promoting a more humane society.

While there has been a rejection of an overemphasis on objectivity, social scientists across various fields acknowledge the importance of objectivity as a cherished but not exclusive value. The ongoing endeavour in social sciences is to strike a balance, with some advocating strongly for objectivity as a primary method. However, the nature of social sciences necessitates the recognition of other values in theory building and research. In conclusion, while objectivity should play a significant role in social sciences, it should not be the sole standard for evaluating research studies. Maintaining a balance is essential to preserve the distinctiveness of social sciences and ensure meaningful contributions to humanity.

Importance of Objectivity in Social science

The concept of objectivity has long been central to methodological debates within the social sciences.

When we adopt the perspective that social science research offers unique insights into societal phenomena, we make implicit assertions about the privileged nature of our work. Thus, research goes beyond merely reflecting personal biases; it shapes, challenges and organizes theories, providing evidence that can question both individual convictions and societal norms. It is within this context that discussions on objectivity arise in the social sciences. The prevailing notion suggests that research untainted by personal values can be deemed objective and less susceptible to critique.

Maintaining objectivity holds crucial significance in scientific investigations, particularly within the realm of social sciences. Although absolute objectivity might be elusive, the endeavour to approach it or to achieve a substantial level of objectivity is fundamental for conducting rigorous scientific examinations.

Viewing inquiries subjectively or confining them solely to individual perspectives risks overlooking critical analyses. Failure to prioritize objectivity leads to the marginalization of rational dialogue, thereby disregarding the concept of intellectual or rational solidarity among humanity and potentially fostering irrationalism and elitism.

Problems of Objectivity in Social research

The difficulties inherent in maintaining objectivity when conducting or applying research on human-centered social phenomena include:

• Social scientists, being active participants in human society, inevitably bring their own subjective viewpoints shaped by personal experiences into their research.
• The complexity of social science subjects often restricts propositions to specific social groups and contexts, adding layers of intricacy to achieving objectivity in such studies.
• Given the diversity of values within society, social researchers may inadvertently be influenced by their own values throughout the research process.
• The pursuit of objectivity faces additional hurdles due to inherent human factors among respondents, such as refusals, misunderstandings, and hesitations. These obstacles introduce biases that can undermine the integrity of research findings and conclusions.

Factors Affecting Objectivity

Achieving objectivity in social science research poses significant challenges due to various adverse influences, including:

1. Personal prejudices and biases: Personal biases and prejudices serve as comforting narratives that steer individuals towards adopting specific beliefs irrespective of evidence. Biases in research stem from personal motives, societal norms and environmental factors, leading to subjective interpretations. These biases can take various forms, including but not limited to self-interest, ambition, social connections, cultural background and political affiliations. Overcoming these biases demands ongoing vigilance from sincere researchers.

2. Value Judgment: Within the societal context of research, matters concerning values often surface. A researcher’s perspective on socio-economic issues is invariably influenced by their personal values. Striving for objectivity necessitates the eradication of individual biases in assessments and the presentation of arguments applicable to all mindsets. Although challenging, transcending subjective judgments is essential, recognizing that individuals in a society are inherently shaped by a spectrum of values.

3. Ethical Dilemma: Exploring the intersections of research with different dimensions presents ethical hurdles. For instance, relationships with sponsors, handling of source data, and interactions with research participants can present ethical quandaries. Being social creatures, humans face various temptations that might sway researchers. Yet, true researchers set themselves apart by resisting such enticements and adhering to ethical norms, thereby guaranteeing that research yields only objective and logical outcomes.

4. Complexity of social phenomena: In the domain of social science inquiry, understanding social phenomena presents a significant hurdle owing to their intricate interplay. The intricate relationships among different social phenomena undoubtedly add to the challenge, yet they are not insurmountable. Sociology, still evolving, advances through the development of innovative methodologies that aid in untangling these intricacies. A diligent researcher aims for impartiality, skillfully navigating the complex network of connections, ultimately resolving intricacies, and objectively examining any phenomena under scrutiny.

Steps taken to ensure Objectivity

1. Examining both the domains of “ideal states” and “current realities” within social science investigations can offer solutions to issues concerning impartiality.
2. Education plays a vital role in empowering social scientists and refining their proficiencies.
3. Carrying out research with transparency and receptiveness to criticism is fundamental.
4. Upholding neutrality stands as a pivotal aspect for social scientists, abstaining from endorsing particular ideologies.

Conclusion: However, scholars from various fields within the social sciences recognize the importance of objectivity as a fundamental principle, albeit not the only one. Achieving a harmonious blend of perspectives is essential in this realm. While some advocate strongly for objectivity as the primary approach, the complex nature of social sciences demands an acknowledgment of the influence of other values in both theory development and research. Ultimately, while objectivity is crucial in the social sciences, it should not be the sole criterion for assessing research endeavors. Neglecting to consider and integrate other values may risk diluting the distinctiveness of social sciences, thereby offering limited benefits to humanity.

References and Readings:

Social Research Methods, by  Neuman/Tucker, https://amzn.to/41J8Loa

Methods in social research, Goode and Hatt, https://amzn.to/3DnJAyk