Parking your Biases
Max Weber argued that it was important for researchers to be as neutral as possible and leave their biases for or against certain philosophies at the door. What are your own favourite philosophies or views, and how easy is it for you to engage in research without viewing the answers (or forming the questions) in light of your own biases?
I think we can all fool ourselves into thinking when we embark on a new assignment that we will complete it as a neutral bystander, above any subjective judgements or decisions over where our learning will take us. However, the paths we chose to explore, the questions we chose to ask, the answers we chose to accept or reject when researching come from somewhere. Sometimes we might be aware of what is fuelling the interest from our past experiences, good or bad, but sometimes we do not!
ReplyDeleteI like the philosophical views of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill of utilitarianism where they saw past British societies as a struggle between authority and liberty. To overcome this, they proposed that the people in power should have limitations placed upon them so the decisions they made is always what is best for the majority of society. I agree with the fact that by taking into account the happiness of the majority it avoids selfishness and greed from the people in power so hopefully their judgements are morally guided for the people instead of being motivated by personal gain which is beneficial to everyone. Living in a society under Bentham and Mills guidance, simply put, that decisions are right if they promote happiness to society but wrong if they promoted misery would make individuals feel more like valued members, such as Mill’s decision to champion women’s right to vote, and maybe as good role models to society, everyone might make less selfish decisions.
Although, how they can objectively decide what will make people happy I don’t agree with. What will make some people happy might cause others pain or worse not be the most moral? Making decisions like this seems to be quite subjective, Bentham and Mill’s judgements on how people should spend their pleasure time is also highly questionable. Mill went on to define how happiness can differ in quality, if it comes from baser pleasures he didn’t agree but if the happiness stemmed from one’s self-improvement such as educational achievements, or culture-based activities he approved. Which suggests even Bentham and Mill were unable to keep their own subjective views out of their political arena.
Often discussed within Bentham’s theory, using the greatest happiness for all principle, Bentham’s paradigm concerning the railway track, where the train is hurtling down the track about to kill five people. You have to decide, would you pull the lever, so the train would only kill one person instead. Bentham would indeed pull the lever, creating the greatest happiness to the most. However, would you do the same? To make the decision, who lived or died? Subjectively, what if you realised it was someone you knew, it was a friend or family member. What if the five people were all convicts, then what? I’m not sure anyone could honestly make an unbiased judgment call.
Importantly, I think it is impossible not judge or view things completely bias free, as Bentham and Mills proved, we all attach a little emotion or ourselves to decisions. However, as long as we are honest with ourselves and aware of our own subjective values and realise when they guide us we should be closer to a clearer truth.
Weber’s Wertfreiheit thoughts state that a researcher leaves prejudice and bias behind to find ethical neutrality, that they simply analyse the evidence. In contrast, Foucault considered scientific research to be always value laden and that there is always a bias.
ReplyDeleteI think it takes a lot of focus on neutrality to remain such, if it even is possible. Most of the time, sociologists take on a research project with expectations around the findings; such expectations can skew actions; therefore, researchers should use critical thinking (Best, 2021). Personally, I think it’s very hard to avoid bias, especially when results don’t meet the hypotheses; in some cases, a rethink and new understand of the results may need to be considered.
I see aspects of many views I like; Stan Cohen’s folk devil theory stands out to me, leading to moral panic which is exemplified by the media. Ownership of the media then connects to theories of Marxism and Neo-Marxism (or the hegemonic approach) - that middle class editors are responsible for the media spreading the dominant ideology of the elite. I also believe that Philip K Dick had a strong point when he said ‘If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words’; Again, this can be considered when investigating forms of the media.
My personal view is that it’s impossible to view research results without the lens of bias. When first viewing research results, we want them to display data that enforces our initial expectations on the matter. However, this is not scientifically neutral and therefore the researcher does need to attempt to stap back from their expectations and view the results with neutrality. As I’ve grown older, my somewhat strong views on some matters have become more deeply embedded and it is harder to approach particular arguments with a neutral view. I think also, that an unavoidable feminist view will creep in when looking at research, especially as a woman and as a parent to a teenage girl who I have been bringing up to have her own feminist attitude.
So truthfully, I like to think I can look at research with neutrality but I’m not sure it’s as easy as I’d like it to be – I’d like to side with Weber but I lean more towards Foucault’s opinion.