Subjectivity

• What is Subjectivity
• Meaning of Subjectivity
• Types of Knowledge in Social Research
• Sources and Types of Data
• Problems with Subjectivity in Research

Introduction

The social sciences diverge notably from the natural sciences by centering on human subjects rather than objects, symbols or abstract concepts. Within the social sciences, understanding the subjective realm holds paramount importance, as scholars seek to unveil and comprehend how individuals experience, perceive and shape the social fabric. Investigating subjective experiences stands as a primary goal in many social science inquiries, adding intricate layers to the interplay between subjectivity and qualitative research. Beyond merely acknowledging the researcher’s subjective lens, it becomes imperative to also consider the subjective viewpoints of the participants.

Given the challenge of directly accessing individuals’ thoughts, especially within group settings, qualitative research relies on interpretive methodologies influenced by language and cultural contexts. This process grows complex as participants interpret their own experience, and researchers subsequently interpret those interpretations. The complexity further deepens when considering the researcher’s standpoint, whether as an outsider observing or as an insider immersed in the studied society or culture. Such perspectives heavily hinge on one’s epistemological stance, as the degree to which one accepts understanding from another’s subjective viewpoint may vary.

Qualitative research delves into understanding subjective experiences while grappling with the necessity of interpretive openness. Researchers navigate their own preconceptions, biases, and stereotypes, which shape their interpretation of the subject matter. The degree to which researchers can acknowledge and transparently address their subjectivity poses a reflective challenge.

Quantitative principles also play a role in qualitative data interpretation, often through methods aimed at ensuring reliability via consensus. Researchers may solicit independent viewpoints on textual data interpretation, hoping that consensus among multiple researchers indicates objectivity. However, this quest for objectivity may inadvertently diminish the significance of subjectivity and, consequently, the qualitative research’s integrity.

Meaning of Subjectivity

Subjectivity, a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, is deeply connected to concepts like consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, and has been approached from various angles by different thinkers. Among the commonly embraced interpretations are:

1. Subjectivity as the inherent quality of being a conscious entity, encompassing the rich tapestry of individual experiences such as perspectives, emotions, beliefs, and desires.
2. Subjectivity as the broader notion of being an active agent capable of exerting influence or power over other entities, extending beyond mere consciousness to encompass agency.
3. Subjectivity as a perspective-bound phenomenon, where information, ideas, situations, or even physical objects are deemed true only within the context of a particular subject or group of subjects.

These definitions often intersect in philosophical discussions, with subjectivity frequently invoked to elucidate how individuals form judgments about reality or truth. It encompasses a wide array of factors including perceptions, experiences, cultural norms, and personal beliefs.

In contrast to subjectivity, objectivity in philosophy represents a viewpoint of truth or reality that is independent of individual biases, interpretations, emotions, or imaginings.

The concept of “subjectivity” has developed diverse connotations over time. Initially, it simply referred to the individual’s internal experiences, such as thoughts, emotions, beliefs and aspirations. However, within traditional scientific discussions, subjectivity often contrasts with objectivity, which is seen as impartiality devoid of bias. This framing tends to equate subjectivity with bias.

The interpretation of subjectivity within research is deeply influenced by one’s philosophical assumptions about knowledge and existence. In mainstream scientific inquiry, objectivity is prioritized as crucial for scholarly investigations, implying that subjectivity should be minimized to ensure the universality of research findings. Consequently, human participants in experiments are often treated as mere objects of study, neglecting their status as sentient beings embedded within social contexts.

In qualitative research methodologies, subjectivity represents both a significant asset and a potential limitation. Contemporary approaches recognize the need to acknowledge and mitigate this limitation in order to fully utilize the advantages offered by qualitative research, such as contextual insights and subjective understanding.

Objective and Subjective Research Perspectives

Engaging in social science research entails collecting information to delve into a specific phenomenon. The approach to gathering data differs depending on the existing knowledge about the subject. Researchers might opt to:

• Investigate a less-explored topic, motivated by an insight or observation, with the goal of deepening comprehension (exploratory research).
• Establish links between concepts to clarify the relationships among various aspects of an issue, essentially revealing the underlying dynamics (explanatory research).
• Offer a detailed account and further elaborate on the initial understanding of events (explicative or descriptive research).

1. Exploratory research frequently involves observing phenomena and utilizing methods like interviews or surveys to collect initial data, enabling researchers to gather preliminary insights.

2. Explanatory research usually assesses hypotheses revolving around cause-and-effect relationships. These hypotheses, crafted by the researcher, are subjected to testing throughout the research journey. The distinction between exploratory and explanatory research parallels the differentiation between inductive and deductive research methodologies. Typically, explanatory research adheres to a deductive approach, whereas exploratory research leans towards an inductive approach. Although exceptions exist, for simplicity’s sake, we won’t explore them in detail here.

3. Descriptive research serves a complementary function within both explanatory and exploratory investigations. Nevertheless, it proves inadequate as the sole methodology for scholarly endeavours since academic research endeavours to propel existing knowledge forward. The researcher’s viewpoint is contingent upon whether they perceive an objective reality, one that can be comprehended impartially, such as regarding profit as an objective indicator of business efficacy. Conversely, the researcher might regard concepts like ‘culture,’ ‘motivation,’ ‘leadership,’ and ‘performance’ as constructs of human perception, their meanings subject to flux depending on circumstances. For example, the interpretation of performance can diverge, encompassing concrete metrics like sales figures for some individuals and favourable client relationships for others.

From an alternate viewpoint, researchers find themselves compelled to embrace subjectivity due to the inherent influence of human processes on conceptual frameworks. Subjective research delves into the personal narratives of participants, recognizing that the researcher’s perspective is intricately intertwined with the research process rather than being completely detached from it.

Conversely, objective research claims to portray an authentic reality independent of the participants. While this oversimplifies research methodologies, it remains a crucial differentiation. The choice between objective and subjective approaches significantly impacts research formulation, data collection methods, analysis techniques, and subsequent conclusions. Thus, it’s vital to introspect on one’s perspective during project planning.

Subjective research often aligns with phenomenological studies, emphasizing individual experiences and personal interpretations. It frequently relies on direct observations or unstructured/semi-structured interviews, allowing for organic discussions or flexible question frameworks. In contrast, objective research tends to mirror natural sciences, employing experiments or large-scale surveys to establish generalizable findings applicable across contexts. This objective stance often aligns with positivism, relying on data amenable to statistical analysis.

In essence, the narrative emphasizes that research, spanning disciplines, aims to answer a fundamental question: why pursue research? The answer lies in advancing knowledge about society beyond individual experiences. Systematic research is pivotal for grasping societal phenomena, with both subjective and objective methodologies playing integral roles. While subjective research illuminates individual experiences, objective research seeks broader patterns through methods rooted in positivism. Ultimately, the accumulation of research-driven knowledge significantly enhances our understanding and interpretation of society.

Types of Knowledge in Social Research

Research endeavours within Sociology typically involve thorough planning and execution, adhering to established protocols to uphold impartiality. This safeguards that the gathered data authentically mirrors the societal landscape, sidestepping subjective inclinations confined to the researchers’ perspectives. The impartiality of sociological insights arises from the intentional, methodical, and rigorous deployment of research methodologies. Generally, knowledge within this domain can be classified into distinct types:

1. Subjective Knowledge: This type of knowledge hinges solely on individual opinions, reflecting personal values, biases, and viewpoints.
2. Objective Knowledge: Objective knowledge remains untainted by researchers’ biases, opinions, and values, portraying an accurate depiction of the social reality.

Although most sociologists advocate for maximizing objectivity in data collection, a faction known as phenomenologists argues that achieving absolute objectivity is unfeasible. They posit that researchers’ perspectives inevitably shape the selection and interpretation of data for dissemination.

Sources and Types of Data

In social research, there is a common practice of categorizing data into primary and secondary, as well as qualitative and quantitative forms:

• Quantitative data refers to numerical information or statistics.
• Qualitative data encompasses written, visual, or audio data, such as interview transcripts, newspapers, and online content. It’s worth noting that qualitative data can also be analyzed and presented in numerical formats.
• Secondary data comprises information collected by previous researchers or institutions like governmental bodies. Official government statistics represent a quantitative type of secondary data, while qualitative sources range from government reports to personal documents like diaries and various audio-visual materials found online.
• Primary data is data directly collected by the researcher. When conducting unique sociological research, a sociologist typically formulates specific research questions and customizes research methods accordingly. Common methods for gathering primary data in sociology include social surveys (often via questionnaires), interviews, experiments, and observations.

Major Primary Research Methods

1. Social Surveys: Social surveys are commonly structured questionnaires designed to collect information from a broad demographic in a uniform manner. Researchers usually plan these surveys beforehand, often including pre-determined and limited closed-ended questions, often focusing on simple topics. The UK National Census serves as a prime example of such surveys. The implementation of social surveys can vary, from respondents completing them independently to structured interviews conducted in public areas, like on the high street, akin to some market research methodologies.

2. Experiments: Experiments are designed to meticulously measure how one variable influences another, aiming to uncover causal connections between them. Typically, these experiments start with a hypothesis, which acts as an initial theory or explanation grounded in limited evidence, laying the groundwork for further exploration. The hypothesis often presents a testable statement about the expected impacts of independent variables on the dependent variable. A well-structured experiment facilitates the establishment of clear cause-and-effect relationships, enabling the validation, rejection, or refinement of the original hypothesis. Experimentation comes in two main forms:

• Laboratory experiments occur in controlled settings, such as laboratories, while
• Field experiments take place in real-world environments like classrooms, workplaces, or public spaces.

3. Interviews: A technique for gathering information through verbal questioning, either in person or over the phone.

• Structured interviews follow a set format where researchers ask predetermined, standardized, and typically closed questions, resembling social surveys. Their main goal is to produce quantitative data.

• Unstructured interviews, also known as informal interviews, resemble guided discussions where researchers ask open-ended questions to gather qualitative data. Researchers start with a broad topic and tailor follow-up questions based on participants’ diverse responses. This approach offers flexibility and allows participants to guide the conversation.
• Semi-structured interviews involve a mix of structured and unstructured elements. Researchers use an interview schedule with open-ended questions, allowing respondents to provide detailed answers. While a set of structured questions is asked to all participants, additional unstructured questions are introduced based on their responses to explore specific topics further.

4. Participant Observation: Participant observation involves the researcher integrating themselves into a specific group, engaging in their everyday routines, and meticulously recording their findings throughout this immersive involvement. Participant observation comes in two main forms. In the overt approach, individuals being studied are aware of the sociological research being conducted. Conversely, the covert method involves the researcher blending in with the group being studied, without the participants realizing they are part of a research project.

Ethnographies and Case Studies

1. Ethnographic studies entail a thorough investigation into the way of life of a specific community within its natural habitat. These inquiries are typically extensive and carried out over a prolonged duration, aiming to offer a profound and detailed comprehension of the group’s culture. Participant Observation serves as the primary research technique, although researchers might also employ diverse methods such as interviews and the scrutiny of pertinent cultural records to attain even more intricate and comprehensive data.

2. Case Studies involve the examination of a singular instance or illustration using multiple methodologies – like studying a particular school or factory. Essentially, an ethnography constitutes an exceedingly detailed case study.

3. Longitudinal studies encompass the observation of a cohort of individuals over an extended timeframe, with data collection occurring at various intervals. For instance, a researcher might commence the study in 2010, initially surveying 1000 participants, and subsequently revisit the same group in 2020 and again in 2025 to gather additional insights.

References and Readings:

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

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