5.2.1. Objectivity and Subjectivity in Sociology

In everyday language, the word ‘objective’ means unbiased, neutral, or based on facts alone. In order to be objective about something, we must ignore our own feelings or attitudes about that thing. On the other hand, the word ‘subjective’ means something that is based on individual values and preferences.

This chunk introduces the basic definitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity refers to a viewpoint that is neutral and based purely on facts, without personal bias or emotional influence. Subjectivity, conversely, indicates that feelings, opinions, and personal biases shape one’s perspective. Sociologists aim for objectivity to ensure that their findings reflect reality rather than personal views.

Consider a food critic reviewing a restaurant. An objective critic would assess the dish based on its taste, presentation, and ingredients while setting aside personal likes or dislikes. In contrast, a subjective critic might let their personal preferences (such as a dislike for spicy food) overly influence their review, failing to provide an impartial assessment.

However, this is much harder to do in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. For example, when a geologist studies rocks, or a botanist studies plants, they must be careful not to let their personal biases or preferences affect their work. ... This creates special problems for objectivity in a social science like sociology.

In this section, we see that achieving objectivity is more challenging in sociology because the sociologist studies the society in which they themselves live. Unlike scientists studying rocks or plants, sociologists cannot fully separate themselves from their subject matter. Their personal biases and social context inevitably influence their research outcomes.

Imagine a sociology teacher conducting research on school cliques. If this teacher has strong feelings about certain cliques based on their own experiences in school, those feelings could influence the way they interpret the behaviors of these cliques in the study, potentially skewing the results.

First of all, there is the obvious problem of bias. Because sociologists are also members of society, they will also have all the normal likes and dislikes that people have. A sociologist studying family relations will herself be a member of a family, and her experiences are likely to influence her.

This chunk highlights bias as a core issue for sociologists. Sociologists inherently bring their own experiences, beliefs, and biases to their research. This personal connection can subtly affect how they interpret data or conduct research, indicating that complete objectivity may be unachievable.

Consider a sociologist researching divorce rates who has personally gone through a divorce. Their own experience may cause them to focus more on negative aspects of divorce, potentially leading to a biased interpretation of their findings compared to someone without personal stakes in the issue.

One method is to rigorously and continuously examine one’s own ideas and feelings about the subject of research. ... This technique is called ‘self-reflexivity’, or sometimes just ‘reflexivity’. The sociologist constantly subjects her own attitudes and opinions to self-examination.

Self-reflexivity is a critical strategy that sociologists use to combat bias. This involves the continuous examination of their own biases and perspectives throughout the research process. By being aware of their own viewpoints, sociologists can work to mitigate their influence on research findings.

A researcher studying cultural subgroups might maintain a journal documenting their feelings and reactions during interviews. By reflecting on these emotions, they can better understand any biases they may have and adjust their approach to enhance objectivity.

Another problem with objectivity in sociology is the fact that, generally, there are many versions of the ‘truth’ in the social world. Things look different from different vantage points, and so the social world typically involves many competing versions or interpretations of reality.

This chunk discusses the multiplicity of truths in sociological research. Different individuals and groups may interpret social phenomena in varied ways based on their backgrounds, experiences, and cultural contexts. This makes it difficult for sociologists to determine a single 'correct' interpretation.

Imagine a community discussing a public event, like a protest. Someone advocating for the cause might see the protest as a vibrant demonstration of civic engagement, while an observer opposed to it may view it as a disruptive act. Both perspectives are valid but lead to different interpretations of the same event.

In fact, the old notion of objectivity is widely considered to be an outdated perspective. ... It means that objectivity has to be thought of as the goal of a continuous, ongoing process rather than an already achieved end result.

The final chunk conveys that traditional ideas of objectivity in sociology are evolving. Instead of viewing objectivity as a final state, it is now recognized as a continuous process that requires ongoing effort to minimize biases and acknowledge multiple perspectives.

Think of a chef who constantly perfects their recipe over time. Rather than believing that their dish will always turn out perfect, they taste, adjust flavors, and innovate continuously. Similarly, sociologists must actively and persistently work on their objectivity throughout their research journey.

--