2 D. Fact value and objectivity
Fact: Facts are defined as empirically verifiable observations. They are thought to be definite, certain, without question, and their meaning to be self-evident. Fact and value are distinct but not disengaged. Without value, fact cannot be discovered.
Alvin Gouldner states that fact and value cannot be separated in empirical research.
Value: Values are subjective, emotional feelings, personal, and judgmental. They come from race, caste, language, religion, or culture, and the socialization process is their source.
Positivists claim that fact and value are not only different but also absolutely separable entities, and value should be completely excluded from sociological inquiry. Values distort reality and produce biased results. If a conclusion is based on fact, it is completely true; otherwise, it is completely false.
Scientific inquiry begins with an ontological and epistemological stand - perception about reality, what is the nature of reality, and theory of knowledge, how do we arrive at knowledge, what method you consider correct to arrive at knowledge - both are value-driven.
Positivists aim at value freedom, Weber desires value relevance and value neutrality. He says that the selection of the field of study is always a valuational choice as rationality of the goal cannot be established in the ultimate analysis. Both Weber and Hillary Putnam argue that theory selection or choice of perspective is always valuational - what to study and what angle to study, both are valuational.
Value-laden theory - Collection of data, its analysis, segregation of useful data from useless data, and arriving at a conclusion are all valuational. The conclusion must be plausible, and plausibility means acceptability, which is arrived at by peer evaluation, which is also a valuational choice.
Michael Polanyi speaks about the value-laden nature of peer evaluation of scientific activity and how censorship is imposed if the conclusion appears absurd/unsound in the light of current scientific knowledge.
Mannheim states, value-free research is a desirable goal towards which social scientists can strive without any necessary expectations of actually attaining it.
Objectivity: An objective view is free from values, moral judgments, and ideologies. It provides facts and explanatory frameworks.
Objectivity is a frame of mind so that personal prejudices, preferences, or predilections of the social scientists do not contaminate the collection or analysis of data.
Durkheim in Rules of Sociological Methods stated that social facts must be treated as things and all preconceived notions about them must be abandoned. Radcliff Brown urges the social scientist to transcend his ethnocentric and egocentric biases while carrying out research.
Gunnar Myrdal points out includes subjectivity. Merton believes that the very choice of the topic is influenced by personal preferences and ideological biases of the researcher.
Ideological biases have an impact on social research as seen from the study of Tepostalan village in Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it from a functionalist perspective and concluded that total harmony exists between various groups, while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the same time from a Marxist perspective, and found that the society was conflict-ridden. Durkheim gave a functional theory of religion, while Marx gave a conflict one.
Field limitations, like experienced by Andre Beteille in Sripuram village, restrict objectivity. Pauline V. Young says that interviewing as a technique of data collection is often subjective as it depends on the rapport built between the researcher and the subjects.
Mills and Wordsworth state that some standpoint or value judgment is necessary for solving social problems. Our socialization is based on values that direct our thinking and action. Social sciences are normative and hence objectivity is unattainable.
Critical social scientists do not desire objectivity.
Objectivity has been found to be neither possible nor desirable. Complete objectivity remains an elusive goal and a researcher must make his value preference or ideological biases clear in the research monograph. Methodological pluralism may help in reducing subjectivity.
How to achieve objectivity?