Saturday, November 16, 2019
The Vision of the Researcher as a Neutral Social Scientist Essay Example for Free
The Vision of the Researcher as a Neutral Social Scientist Essay The approach to any of the social scientists has always been one of detachment. Any researcher or scientist in any of the fields of Social Science will emphasize the need for the scientist to maintain a neutral stance and maintain a certain level of distance from the research subjects. Recently, there have been schools of thought that challenge this perception, arguing that once a researcher has been â€Å"captured†he becomes a participant in the â€Å"fierce fight to construct reality†(Latour and Woolgar, 1979, pg 31). Other schools of thought criticize the vision of the researcher as a neutral social scientist by insisting that there is no way that a researcher can maintain neutrality in this field (Mulkay, 1983). These criticisms on the vision of the researcher as a neutral social scientist now raise a relevant issue in this field pertaining to what is necessary to become an effective researcher. This discourse will therefore seek to resolve the issue regarding the neutrality of researchers in social science by first identifying the particular needs of social science as a discipline and then by analyzing the traits that have made the researcher effective. The next segment will discuss the relevance of maintaining neutrality as a researcher or social scientist. The analysis portion will attempt to shed light on the criticisms raised regarding this issue and to show how they may be effective traits or characteristics of researchers. Finally, this study will attempt to synthesize the proper traits that make for an effective researcher given the complexity of the issues surrounding the current discipline of social science by proposing that the neutral approach may not always be best suited for every study in this field. The Social Sciences            The Social Sciences are basically characterized as academic disciplines that study and examine the human aspects of the world. While social sciences studying subjective, inter-subjective and objective or structural aspects of society, the scientific method, including quantitative and qualitative methods is often used in this field. Thus social science had a need for theoretical purity which was addressed by the scientific method (Sasson, 1997).  The triumphs of mankind in the field of natural sciences such as biology and physics planted the seed for the idea that human society and actions could be studied under the framework of the â€Å"scientific method†. The prominence of this idea soared as it provided hope that a complete understanding of the nature of humans was possible and that the affairs of human beings could now be more rationally controlled.            One of the greatest problems of the field of social sciences lies in the fact that there have been problems delineating the role of social scientists due to the nature of their work and the relative significance of the field that they are studying (Sasson, 1997). The role of the researcher in social sciences has been affected by the perception of people that social science does not provide a clear line as to the role it plays, whether as a pure researcher, a technocrat or as a public moralist. This is the source of most of the controversies regarding the vision of the researcher as a neutral social scientist. The Researcher            A researcher must possess certain traits and characteristics to preserve the theoretical purity and integrity of any scientific work under the scientific method. This trait however is made most difficult to possess because of the human tendency to create bias or to completely detach oneself from other social beings. There are however certain guidelines and rules that are helpful in delineating the role and setting the amount of â€Å"acceptable†involvement that an effective researcher may have with the research subjects.            As mentioned in the previous section, there have been problems with regard to the role of researchers and thus creating controversy over their neutrality. For the purposes of this section, the role of a social scientist as a pure researcher and what makes him effective will be briefly discussed.            An effective researcher is able to properly understand the qualitative and quantitative approaches to empirical research. Ideally, an effective researcher is able to come up with conclusions or theories regarding the action of humans in society by simply just â€Å"crunching the numbers†(Chubin, 2003, pg 75).  The quantitative was seen as the more accurate method as it was in line with the principle of the scientific method and since it principally worked by gathering data through objective methods. This enabled researchers to provide relevant information concerning relations, comparisons, and predictions.  This was the initial attempt at removing the investigator from the investigation, or in this case, detaching the researcher from the research subject (Smith, 1983).            As the social sciences began to expand and it became apparent that the scientific method of employing a quantitative approach was not enough, more and more disciplines in the social sciences began requiring that the interview become a more interested part, or more involved in the research study that had to be conducted (Jacob, 1988). This led to the emphasis now on maintaining the neutrality as a researcher. Relevance of Neutrality as a Researcher            As previously mentioned, the most important aspect of being an effective researcher lies in being able to maintain total or at least an acceptable level of impartiality with regard to the subject matter as well as the research subjects. More often than not, most researches become drawn into the conflict because of the nature of man as a social being (Wolcott, 1990). Social Sciences, as the name implies, demands a certain level of interaction between the researcher and the subjects for the study which has in turn led to the criticism that it is impossible to attain total impartiality in the field of Social Sciences.            Participant Observation is one of the key tasks in the social sciences and it deals with involvement in the development of the research object or study.  The problem here is that more often than not these acts are considered as acts of intervention on the part of the researcher and tend to affect the credibility and integrity of whatever research is being conducted (Hacking, 1983). There for the relevance of such neutrality becomes apparent because for a researcher to be able to maintain a certain level of credibility and assume a certain moral standard, it becomes necessary to adopt a position that is neutral to the issue and neutral with the subjects of the study. Criticisms against Neutrality            The foremost criticism against the neutrality of social scientists and researches is that the so called neutrality of any social scientist or researcher in the field of social sciences is a myth particularly when it comes to controversies surrounding the issue (Scott, 1990).            â€Å"Neutral researchers of the social sciences†, according to Scott, Richards and Martin (1990), â€Å"will be always be thought of by participants as being on the side of the underdog†(pg 480). Regardless of the fact that the researcher is neutral, whatever work he accomplishes, he will always been drawn into a debate concerning his topic (Collins, 1979). One field of social science where this has been prevalent is in controversy analysis. While according to a study on this issue, â€Å"the disadvantage of studying controversies is that it may give an unrealistic picture of the day-to-day operations of normal science,†it cannot be denied that this is a growing field of interest and has also invited the participation of researchers of the social sciences in an attempt to further understand human behavior (Mulkay 1983). There is impossibility in keeping the neutrality that a researcher is required to possess particularly in this field. Though a researcher may insist on his neutrality, the problem arises once the researcher is drawn into a debate surrounding the controversy and the neutrality that is demanded can no longer be maintained. What this school of thought therefore proposes is that in order for a researcher to maintain his impartiality particularly in this field or in other fields in the social sciences which require intervention and interaction, a certain level of acceptable â€Å"partiality†must be allowed for.            The next criticism is one against the utter impossibility of conducting experiments without any degree of interaction between the researcher and the subjects of the study in order to prevent any biases and involvement (Ribes, 2005). The degree of intermingling and cross disciplines among the social sciences and even natural sciences today has created a problem for the researcher to maintain the vision of his neutrality (Bowker, 1999).            It has been accepted that Participant Observation is relevant in the conduct of research in the social sciences and that it does allow for a certain degree of involvement. The problem now lies in the significance of the study as a totally neutral research study can quickly become a very biased study depending on the degree of relevance it has to society. An example of this would be research on certain factors in society that contribute to violence. Too much intervention and involvement can lead to too much media participation that the sample becomes unusable. Since social sciences deal with people, any intervention can be seen as contaminating the samples since people become aware of the study and may no longer react naturally. It is clear however that there is a need for intervention because of the cross disciplines that have been developed over the years and it cannot be denied that such are more effective and accurate at coming up with ground breaking studies (Ribes, 2005).            The other major criticism is that social scientists are unable to clearly research anything without any biases because of the strong link or bond between social scientists or researches and the state (Baritz, 1960). Relevant historical accounts state that even as early as 1662, England and France have utilized the services of social researchers to further the ends of the state (Popper, 1945). The state is therefore theorized by some to be the father of social scientists and researchers and as such the social sciences cannot exist without the state.            This attack on the neutrality of researchers of the social sciences uses the findings that there has constantly been state support for the social sciences and as such these researches owe a certain allegiance to the state and cannot be considered as purely impartial because of this so called â€Å"intrinsic link†(Popper, 1945). The strength of this argument lies in the assumption that without the state, no society can exist and therefore leading to the conclusion that social sciences cannot exist without society.            While there may be logic to this argument against the vision of the researcher as a neutral social scientist, emotionally detached and socially separated from their research subjects, this is the weakest argument as such because it basis most of its arguments on unproven relationships. The arguments presented in this criticism clearly show the bias of the researcher with regard to the issue and subject matter. This criticism, however, lends strength to the main flow of this discourse. This shows that it is in the nature of the researcher as a human being to create certain assumptions and bias that make it impossible to maintain total impartiality and neutrality with respect to the field that he is currently involved in. Secondly, this also shows how letting go of one’s neutrality in favor of bias and disposing of the scientific method can lead to very faulty assumptions and poorly conceived arguments. It is because of these reasons that lead to the findings that theory that the vision of the researcher as a neutral social scientist, emotionally detached and socially separated from their research subjects, cannot be totally abrogated and must be accepted to a certain degree while allowing for the field to progress given the various advancements in the field of social sciences. Application of Contemporary Social Theories            In analyzing the criticisms against the vision of the researcher as a neutral scientist, it is relevant that this be analyzed in the context of contemporary social theories. The first contemporary social theory that is relevant in this case is structural functionalism and how it shows the difficulty in maintaining a certain level of detachment from the subject of the study.            Structural Functionalism basically tackles the relationship of social activity of human beings to the overall social system that exists in their society (Barnard 2000). The relevance of this theory in formulating the basic guidelines in guiding researches to maintain a neutral stance lies in the fact that all human beings, researchers included, belong to a basic social structure from which it is impossible to detach oneself from. The fact that integral units of every society work together unconsciously towards the maintenance of overall social stability means that a researcher is also unconsciously involved in the social issue which he is studying (Barnard 2000).            Another theory of significance in this discourse is the views of contemporary feminism. â€Å"Contemporary feminism†, according to Grosz, (1994), â€Å"is the negation of factors such as: relationship of gender, sexuality, and the daily lives of specific women to collective needs, capital, labor, and their relation in the mode of production.†(pg 153) Essentially, the contribution of this contemporary social theory is that it provides a solid framework for establishing a method by which a researcher is able to maintain academic credibility and integrity by being able to participate objectively in the studies being conducted.            The method by which contemporary feminism has disconnected itself from the struggles of changing the social relations that affect women’s lives should serve as a model by which a researcher should also be able to disconnect himself from not only the subject matter of the study but the other factors as well (Grosz, 1994).            These two perspectives on contemporary social theories then provide the backbone for the argument in the next segment which will show how a researcher can still be effective as a neutral social scientist. Effectiveness of a Researcher as a Neutral Social Scientist            This discourse has so far shown that the traditional method of maintaining total impartiality is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. It defies that characterization of man as a social being and goes against the natural order of humans as social beings. This leads one to the conclusion that there are positive points that one can learn from the criticisms. It is therefore relevant at this point of this study to assess the validity of such criticisms and if possible synthesize the main points of the arguments to form a single guideline regarding the role of researchers and in the vision of maintaining not only the â€Å"perceived†neutrality but also the reliability and integrity of any work by a researcher in the field of the social sciences.            The first key to being an effective researcher therefore lies in the ability to abide by the principles of the â€Å"scientific method†and in being able to conduct the research, analyze the data and properly maintain a certain distance from the subject matter (Scott, 1990). Yet, it has been proven in this discourse that intervention is relevant and thus total neutrality cannot be maintained by the researcher. This leads to the second key to the success and effectiveness of the researcher.            A researcher must therefore maintain the vision of impartiality and neutrality despite the participant observation that is required in the pursuit of certain studies (Collins, 1979). While the researcher may be linked with and interact with the subject of the study, detachment is not totally necessary to maintain that neutrality that is required (Ribes, 2005). This problem is also resolved in controversy resolutions and debates which, as previously mentioned, reveal whatever biases may have existed and at the same time this may also improve the integrity and credibility of the research project in question.            It is therefore clear that the vision of researchers as a neutral social scientist emotionally detached and socially separated from their research subjects is not required in all aspects of the social sciences and can be accepted within a certain degree in order for this field to be able to advance the current level of understanding on society and of human interactions. Conclusion            In conclusion, the vision of researchers as neutral social scientist, emotionally detached and socially separated from their research subjects is correctly criticized by most groups for the main reason that the demands of social sciences given all the various technological advances and methods by which impartiality may be threatened. The danger that the integrity of the social sciences will be deeply questioned by the continued practice of total neutrality is apparent. In order to cope with the ever changing disciplines and to properly apply the deeper understanding of cultures, society and human interactions, it is important to adopt a method that is flexible enough to adapt to the needs of this discipline. It is therefore important to maintain an acceptable degree of involvement or participation while still being aware of the unintended consequences that it may bring as well as the danger of too much intervention.  References: Baritz, L. (1960) The Servants of Power. A history of the use of social science in American industry, Wesleyan University. Barnard, A. (2000). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Bowker, G. C. and Star, S. L. (1999) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass. Collins, H. M., and Pinch, T.J. (1979) The construction of the paranormal: Nothing unscientific is happening. In Sociological Review Monograph No. 27: On the margins of science: The social construction of rejected knowledge, edited by Roy Wallis, 237-70. Keele University Press: University of Keele. Chubin R., Daryl E., and Restivo S. (1983). The mooting of science studies: research programmes and science policy. In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), 53-83. London: Sage. Grosz, E. (1994) Volatile Bodies: Toward A Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Indiana Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York, Cambridge University Press. 1983 Jacob, M. (1988) Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: Systems of Innovation Social Science Information. 45: 431-462 Latour, A., Bruno, W. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage. Mulkay, M, Potter, J. and Yearley, S. (1983). Why an analysis of scientific discourse is needed. In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, ed. Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 171-203. London: Sage.  Popper, K.(1945) â€Å"Much of our social science still belongs to the Middle Ages., The Open Society and its Enemies. Princeton University Press. New Jersey Ribes, D. (2005) The Positions of the Social Scientist: Social and Technical Acts of Intervention Sociology and Science Studies, University of California-San Diego â€Å"Stufying Digital Library Users in the Wild JCDL Workshop Sasson, H. (1997) On Social Science London School of Economics Centennial Address, London School of Economics Press, London Scott, P, Richards, E. and Martin, B. (1990) Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher in Contemporary Scientific Controversies Published in Science, Technology, Human Values, Vol. 15, No. 4, Fall 1990, pp. 474-494 Smith, G. (1983) An International Review of Research in the Social Dimensions of Science and Technology Volume 13, No. 1 Sage Publications Wolcott, H.R. (1990) Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York. Teachers College Press Pp 121-152.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.