RSS Feed

“Truth” & the Objectivity Question in Social Science Research

2

Thursday, September 20, 2012 by




Is not the process of truth seeking in Social Science problematic given the perspective of the researcher and the line of inquiry he or she may pursue for their research? This question arose from my reading of chapter four in Luker which questions the objectivity of the observer given his location and hence non-detachment from society.  (Luker, 59.)

To further examine this issue, lets take a rather primitive research question: Does Smoking Cause Cancer? What social forces compelled the researcher to create this question? Maybe he/she knew of family members who smoked and who later got cancer.  This view could have been reinforced by advertisements, news reports and popular health shows that report the link between smoking and cancer.  However, this begs the question: Is the researcher correct in making the assumption that smoking causes cancer?  Maybe, maybe not, but already at the beginning stages of forging a research question, one can see how bias or assumptions shape a line of inquiry.  Hence when one talks about “Truth” or “Objectivity” in Social Science, what does one mean by “Truth” or “Objectivity”?

Suppose a research study did find a link between smoking and cancer, what does this mean? Someone learning about this study could create the meaning that smoking is harmful to your health.  Also, various news agencies and popular health shows could posit the claim that smoking causes cancer.  In turn, Cigarette companies like Marlborough could cry foul against the study calling it biased and geared towards taking cigarette companies out of business.  From such a plethora of societal views, how is one to connect a particular finding to the broader question of “Truth”? It would seem that the road to the “Truth” is not as simple as a straightforward proposition. 


2 comments

  1. Those capitals in Truth and Objectivity are so problematic, aren't they? I think for the sake of sanity, one must abandon those capitals and just start dealing in truth and objectivity.

    I completely agree though; the simple act of positing a question reveals some sort of bias/prejudice/subjectivity. Using your example of smoking and cancer, the mere positing of the question shows some expectation of a link. I think however, at least in the hard sciences, this can be contended with using excellent documentation and methodology. In the social sciences though...difficult to say.

    I think admitting one's own stance/preconceptions is the best we as researchers can do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree as well. Luker certainly points out the difficulties inherent in assumed causation, and as researchers we must be very careful about linking ideas. I enjoyed the Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) example because, although it relates very specifically to the quasi-experimental design, it demonstrates how focusing only on "controlled" variables (or expected links) can cause one to miss information (the "unobserved heterogeneity") that will impact their findings. I like how it (perhaps) explains why studies consistently seem to disagree about what causes cancer, and whether or not red wine has health benefits (I wish).

    It seems as though the best researchers can do is point out a relative truth, which isn't really a "Truth" at all. Maybe we should think of it more as a reasonably demonstrated fact about life, or a "Justified True Belief" (though I really hate to take Plato out of context).

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.