1

William Molnar

After reading the last part of Sayer's chapter 9, post your response to the following question:

Sayer says, "Social science must be critical of its object” (p. 6). However, others have maintained that
social scientists should simply observe and describe things as they exist, so as not to compromise their
objectivity and impartiality. Who do you side with in this controversy? Why? Support your position.

To continue Sayer’s statement on page 6, he says that “In order to be able to explain and

understand social phenomena we have to evaluate them critically”. I would have to say that I

would side with objectivity. I believe that social scientist must observe and describe things

exactly as they exist. The following discussion supports my position. Objectivity is what was

observed to happen and is based on emotions and personal preducices that are uninfluenced. A

certain level of judgment is required for objectivity. In objectivity, the researcher is not

influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Objectivity

means being able to relate to external phenomena as opposed to one’s intentions, feeling, or

perceptions. It means being without bias or prejudice and disinterest.

On the other hand, impartiality is weighing both opinions and views equally. Impartial

means not favoring one more than another, treating all alike, unbiased, equitable, fair and just.

Impartial is defined as meaning not disposed of, prefers, or favor one above another, unbiased,

unprejudiced, just and fair. A man who is impartial is one who is not biased in favor of one side

more than another, who is indifferent, unprejudiced, disinterested. Objectivity is reporting the

facts as they’re observed. In the social sciences, there is a desire to report observable facts

esactly as they are. This is why I support objectivity. A simple event can be reported through an

infinite amount of information. In order to say something simple, a person has to filter out a lot

and decide what should and should not be left out is a process that can never be objective.
 2
William Molnar

Objectivity is not influenced by surmise, personal , or emotional prejudice, based on the

factual presentation of observable phenomena. What challenges one is the view of impartiality or

objectivity or “clouded by, our personal perspective and experience”. What a researcher sees as

impartial or objective behavior can be different from another’s. In creating an environment

where students believe they have been treated with understanding, concern, fairness and

objectivity, it is important to create a baseline of expectation of behavior expected from the

members that are set on the goal of creating a certain environment. In creating an environment

where students believe they have been treated fairly and objectively, then a discussion of an

established baseline is expected. There are “universally accepted tenants regarding this goal”.

This include a showing a deep concern for involved individuals, thinking, listening and then

responding, not responding or reacting in the ‘heat of the moment’, becoming involved in group

disucssion and/or before responding, obtaining feedback. Ojbectivity is also questioning the

person involved if they have any remaining questions. Asking the indivdual what they believe to

be an appropriate response to a question or situation is appropriate before decidingyourself. Deal

with the facts and use your logic, senses and inquisitive mind as useful tools. Whenever possible,

stay as impersonal from the situation. It is not easy to set your experiences aside when creating a

response. Your success as a person is based on these experiences. Realize that and make sure the

experiences do not place any limitations on your ability to be objective. Your goal is to be as

impartial and objective as practical. It is the researcher’s obligation to excuse himself if he

believes that the objectivity is compromised, whether it be real or perceived The researcher is the

only person that can decide when the threshold has been met. Do not presuppose. The old adage

“if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is a duck.” Is a good

statement to follow. “Shades of gray”, in administering this type of process, are part of the
 3
William Molnar

challenge.

Objectivity is commonly applied to knowledgeable theories. Questions applying the term

include “Is this scientific theory objective?” And “Are you objectively sure about what you

saw?” But the word “objective” in the attempt questioning, also has application. A person can be

“objective” not just for the knowledge itself, but also about the way knowledge is gained. There

is some debate in the process of gaining knowledge as to what actually counts as an exact

definition of objectivity. Even so, under the heading of objectivity, “a system of inquiry can be

said to be objective in some narrower sense”. One can sense a critique because it is a question of

inquiry because critiques require the understanding of ideas. “Examining a criticism or

suggestion is useful because it allows us to examine under what criteria a critique or suggestion

is to be counted as valid”. We must examine what counts as objectivity in order to do this.

Objectivity means “freedom from idiosyncrasies.” An idea is objective because it is pure

according to the researcher’s beliefs; forcing the individual that is making the suggestions and

criticisms ignore personal feelings and biases. Objectivity is defined as “the negative of personal

subjectivity or as the opposite of personal opinion”. Impartiality is acting completely according

to the qualities of the situation and objectivity is based on advice and decision of rigorous

analysis. When dealing with objectivity, information and advice must be provided based on the

evidence. In addition, one should base their decisions on the qualities of the case and consider

professional and expert advice. Don’t disregard relevant considerations or untimely facts when

making decisions or providing advice.

References
 4
William Molnar

http://sga.appstate.edu/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_pages&PAGE
_id=550

www.gustavus.edu/oncampus/academics/philodophy/ehrich.html

http://quando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3657