“Write short note : Problem of objectivity in social research.” (2000)

Objectivity in social research is compromised at its root by the fact that the sociologist studies a society she is herself a part of, carrying inherited values, categories, and interests into every stage of inquiry from topic selection to interpretation.
Robert Merton noted that even the choice of what to research reflects the personal and ideological preferences of the researcher, and Gunnar Myrdal argued that a completely value-free social science is simply unattainable.
Rather than restating this obstacle at length, this note concentrates on the methodological responses sociologists have developed to manage the problem, since no single researcher’s introspective effort at neutrality can substitute for these collective safeguards.

Values enter research at the point of topic selection, in the very concepts used to frame a question, in the interpretation given to ambiguous data, and in the techniques of data collection themselves — a participant observer risks “going native,” while an outsider risks imposing categories foreign to those studied.
Because objectivity cannot be secured by an individual researcher’s private effort at neutrality alone, sociology has developed institutional and methodological responses that substitute collective checking for personal disinterestedness.

Rather than claiming a neutral vantage point that does not exist, reflexive practice requires the researcher to disclose her social location, disciplinary training, and value premises, so readers can judge how these might have shaped the findings.
Myrdal’s own proposed remedy is precisely this: state value premises explicitly and in advance rather than pretending to have none, so the logic connecting premises to conclusions remains open to scrutiny.
Pierre Bourdieu extended this into what he called participant objectivation — turning the sociologist’s own analytical tools back onto her social origins and position within the academic field, treating her own standpoint as itself an object of study rather than a hidden influence.

Combining multiple data sources, multiple investigators, multiple theoretical lenses, and multiple methods on the same research question reduces the risk that any single method’s particular bias determines the conclusion.
Because different methods carry different, non-overlapping weaknesses, agreement across them is stronger evidence than agreement produced by one method repeated, and disagreement usefully signals exactly where a finding needs further examination rather than being dismissed as failure.

Fully disclosing the sampling method, interview schedule, coding scheme, and analytic steps used allows another researcher to retrace the study’s logic and, in principle, replicate it — a study whose procedure cannot be checked by anyone else offers no way to distinguish a genuine finding from an artefact of the researcher’s own preferences.
This transparency is precisely what current reform movements in the social sciences around pre-registration and open data-sharing are meant to institutionalise, responding to documented instances where undisclosed analytic choices produced findings that did not hold up under later scrutiny.

Since no researcher can fully see her own blind spots, the discipline substitutes the judgment of a wider community of researchers for any single individual’s claim to neutrality — a study’s methods and inferences must survive scrutiny by others before being accepted as sociological knowledge.
- “The objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested.” — Karl Popper
This is why objectivity is better understood, following Bourdieu and Popper together, as a property that a disciplined research community achieves collectively through its critical rules, rather than a psychological state any one researcher can simply will into being.
The problem of objectivity in social research cannot be solved by individual willpower alone, since the researcher’s embeddedness in society is a structural condition rather than a personal failing to be corrected by effort.
What sociology offers instead is a set of procedural responses — reflexivity, triangulation, transparency, and peer scrutiny — that manage the problem by distributing the check on bias across a community rather than relying on any one researcher’s introspection.
These responses do not deliver certainty, but they convert an unavoidable difficulty into a disciplined and self-correcting practice, which is the most that any empirical inquiry into meaningful human conduct can realistically claim.

Write short note : Problem of objectivity in social research.

Download PDF