Why is being objective important in research?

To be objective, a researcher must not allow their values, their bias or their views to impact on their research, analysis or findings. For research to be reliable and to be considered scientific, objectivity is paramount.

Índice Show

Objectives give direction to the paper
Objectives help to avoid any diversion from the topic
Research objectives minimize the wastage of resources
Objectives ease the understanding of the research by the target audience

However, some question whether sociology can ever be entirely objective, as researchers' views and values are likely to affect their choice of topic.

Weber argued that while sociologists should be interested in the subjective views of their subjects, they should remain objective in their research; others (such as postmodernists) argue that objectivity is impossible at all stages of research.

Many sociologists – not just those who consider their activities to be scientific – argue that sociological research needs to be objective; that their biases and values should never influence their research design, interpretation or analysis.

But interpretivist sociologists are interested in the subjective views and interpretations of their subjects, believing that it is impossible to objectively establish social facts. Nonetheless, most would still urge sociologists to be objective in their research, even though postmodernists argue that all research is inevitably subjective.

Reflexivity is the act of a researcher constantly reflecting on the extent to which they themselves are impacting on their research and their findings. Some interpretivists and particularly postmodernists note that the researcher is not able to be genuinely objective because they are as much a part of the society being studied as the subjects of the research. As such the researcher needs to consider and acknowledge their own bias and the values that might inform their interpretations and analysis.

Objectivity and Subjectivity in Sociological Research

Research can simply be explained as a systematic search for knowledge. In order to successfully conduct research, a research topic/subject has to be decided. The research process involves gathering data on the research subject and analyzing it to reach a comprehensive conclusion. But the important question here is; who will decide what should be searched and how it will be decided? The answer is that the researcher has to define the objectives and decide what needs to be searched. The researcher has full control of the research subject. But how it will be decided what needs to be searched? It’s tricky but involves simple logic. In our daily lives, if we know our destination, we can choose a path to reach there.

Similarly in research, if we know what we are looking for then we can decide how we can accomplish it. Thus, we can say that the intended results define the framing of the objectives. Here the objectives come into the scene and gain importance.

Objectives give direction to the paper

The objectives of a study provide a clear direction. As soon as the researcher defines the objectives, the scope is defined. On the basis of the objectives, further processes are carried out including primary and secondary data collection, data analysis, drawing interpretation and conclusion of the research. All these research processes are dependent on the objectives and are carried out in accordance with it.

Objectives help to avoid any diversion from the topic

Once the researcher starts gathering data for the research, especially the secondary data, he/she comes across abundant data related to the research subject. The researcher often gets blinded by the wide amount of data available from a variety of sources and frequently diverts from the core subject. The abundance of data brings confusion as to which data to be utilized for present research and which data should be discarded. The objectives help the researcher to stick to the current research and avoid any diversion from the research topic.

Research objectives minimize the wastage of resources

By preventing the researcher to deviate from the research topic, objectives minimize the wastage of the researcher’s time, money and energy. Objectives help the researcher to concentrate on the current research. Wastage of the research resources is reduced with clearly-defined objectives and hence, the efficiency of the study is enhanced.

Objectives ease the understanding of the research by the target audience

All research goes in vain if the target audience i.e. the beneficiaries of the research fails to understand it. The objectives help the target audience to clearly understand the purpose of particular research and it, therefore, eases understanding. Thus, objectives also make research meaningful for the target audience.

Answer:

Q: Can researchers be objective? If yes, why do you think so?

Let’s first clarify several principles that guide an answer to this important question.

A procedure or outcome is objective only when its truth or reality conditions are met without bias being introduced by an investigator either inadvertently or intentionally. Scientific objectivity refers to a researcher’s ability to make judgements without partiality or external influence. Thus, a lack of objectivity can occur when an investigator’s research naivety or when their prior beliefs or perceptions influence the outcome of their study. Objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality about the outcome of an investigation.

Researchers reflect a wide diversity in the human condition. Among all the researchers in the world there exists (1) vastly different levels of knowledge about how to conduct research, and (2) major different purposes for engaging in research activities.

Some researchers are skilled in conducting investigations in such a way that their beliefs and biases maintain separation from the outcome. This separation is purposely introduced to avoid influencing the outcome. Other researchers blunder through the investigative process in pursuit of the exact answer that they advocated before starting their study. They search and search until they find the answer that parallels their prior beliefs … and once found, then they stop seeking any alternative explanation! What this tells us is that not all researchers can act objectively ~ either because they do not know how to scrutinize the complex relationships embedded in data, or because they engage in investigations as a device to ‘prove-their-point.’

Being human, with all the curiosity and inquisitiveness that drives researchers, we investigate topics that we find to be fascinating and for which we understand that answers are needed. Researchers need to reflect sustained interest and perseverance in pursuing a topic, and this requires that we must have some degree of anticipation as to what an outcome of an investigation might disclose. This is the established way for crafting hypotheses that anticipate what the data might show. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on honorable researchers to work diligently to ensure that their research protocol and the interpretations they make about data uncovers objective truth.

Researchers have an obligation to become acquainted with established scientific procedures developed over centuries that help establish separation between the researcher and their research outcome. The researcher must allow the data to speak for themselves uninfluenced by characteristics of the researcher.

Only researchers who learn and then follow best-practice in research methodology, and who scrub their procedures of conditions that introduce bias, can be said to investigate with objectivity.

Caven S. Mcloughlin, Ph.D., Emeritus professor, and former editor-in-chief of an academic journal for a major commercial international publisher

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.