A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood

In this article, I mount a defense of objectivity as a fitting and necessary norm for the conduct of social scientific research. A number of social scientists and philosophers have criticized this norm because it seems to call for disinterested investigations that are free from any kind of evaluativ...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Frederick Bird
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2020-12-01
Series:Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1785679
id doaj-9f26a66545f443b097ffa6e5fabb6229
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9f26a66545f443b097ffa6e5fabb62292021-02-08T14:09:13ZengTaylor & Francis GroupSustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy1548-77332020-12-01161839810.1080/15487733.2020.17856791785679A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understoodFrederick Bird0Concordia UniversityIn this article, I mount a defense of objectivity as a fitting and necessary norm for the conduct of social scientific research. A number of social scientists and philosophers have criticized this norm because it seems to call for disinterested investigations that are free from any kind of evaluative judgments and seems overwhelmingly to favor quantitative research. I argue that these criteria are inappropriately used as guidelines for objectivity. Researchers can comply with the norm of objectivity, rightly understood, and still be interested observers, make value judgments in relation to their research, and conduct qualitative studies. I argue instead that the norm of objectivity refers to a set of guidelines for interpreting and reporting on research that views this reporting as an intelligible, reasonable, and inherently reciprocating, public activity. By implication these norms also establish correlative guidelines for gathering and analyzing research information. Briefly, as investigators social scientists are called upon honestly to represent our research, to use measures and terms of references that allow for comparisons and verifications by our audiences, and to exercise responsible judgments. I conclude that my account of objectivity is consistent with Weber’s defense of this norm more than a century ago.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1785679objectivitysocial sciencesnormsweberpublic discourse
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Frederick Bird
spellingShingle Frederick Bird
A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy
objectivity
social sciences
norms
weber
public discourse
author_facet Frederick Bird
author_sort Frederick Bird
title A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
title_short A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
title_full A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
title_fullStr A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
title_full_unstemmed A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
title_sort defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy
issn 1548-7733
publishDate 2020-12-01
description In this article, I mount a defense of objectivity as a fitting and necessary norm for the conduct of social scientific research. A number of social scientists and philosophers have criticized this norm because it seems to call for disinterested investigations that are free from any kind of evaluative judgments and seems overwhelmingly to favor quantitative research. I argue that these criteria are inappropriately used as guidelines for objectivity. Researchers can comply with the norm of objectivity, rightly understood, and still be interested observers, make value judgments in relation to their research, and conduct qualitative studies. I argue instead that the norm of objectivity refers to a set of guidelines for interpreting and reporting on research that views this reporting as an intelligible, reasonable, and inherently reciprocating, public activity. By implication these norms also establish correlative guidelines for gathering and analyzing research information. Briefly, as investigators social scientists are called upon honestly to represent our research, to use measures and terms of references that allow for comparisons and verifications by our audiences, and to exercise responsible judgments. I conclude that my account of objectivity is consistent with Weber’s defense of this norm more than a century ago.
topic objectivity
social sciences
norms
weber
public discourse
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1785679
work_keys_str_mv AT frederickbird adefenseofobjectivityinthesocialsciencesrightlyunderstood
AT frederickbird defenseofobjectivityinthesocialsciencesrightlyunderstood
_version_ 1724279956704329728