The meaning of scientific objectivity and subjectivity: From the perspective of methodologists.

Abstract

Given the challenges to the notion of objectivity posed by social psychological research on investigator effects, constructivist and critical epistemological perspectives, and the introduction of qualitative research methods in psychology, the investigators examined how leading methodologists understand the function of objectivity and subjectivity in psychological science. The aim of the study was to learn how contemporary methodologists view these issues so as to communicate converging perspectives to the field and inform methods education. A brief historical review of the concept of objectivity in psychology is presented to contexualize this examination. Eleven accomplished methodologists with expertise in a range of methods and epistemological perspectives were interviewed. Findings from a grounded theory analysis demonstrated that all the participants expressed concern about the belief that science is unaffected by scientists' perspectives, believing researchers and educators should problematize this perspective. Recommendations from participants included that science be viewed as a value-laden endeavor in which scientists systematically conduct research from multiple epistemological perspectives, and/or utilize diverse methods tailored to address their questions. Scientific procedures were detailed that could curtail dangers of either unchecked subjectivity or a false sense of objectivity. A functional analysis of these constructs, objectivity and subjectivity, suggested they both serve a similar scientific and an ethical purpose-to prevent the premature foreclosure of possible understanding because of the expectations of researchers. The mainstreaming of disclosures about the perspectives and positions of investigators, as well as their management, and the implementation of epistemological and methodological pluralism are encouraged to support this ethic.

Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform

“…In sum, reflexive practices acknowledge how researcher subjectivity is relevant to the construction of knowledge (Alcoff, 1991;Harding, 1991;Levitt et al, 2020;Merrick, 1999).…”

“…Indeed, a majority of psychologists admit to using at least one questionable research practice (e.g., only reporting results that "work" or hypothesizing after results are known; John et al, 2012). Because all researchers derive biases, politics, motivations, and interests from their social positions (Levitt et al, 2020), a reflexive research praxis rejects the epistemic exclusion of marginalized knowledge and marginalized researchers (Settles et al, 2019) by showcasing how all researchers approach their research through a unique vantage point and position (Fine, 2018).…”

A Pluralistic Perspective on Research in Psychotherapy: Harnessing Passion, Difference and Dialogue to Promote Justice and Relevance

“…Pluralistically oriented psychotherapy research does not promote qualitative research over RCTs or neuropsychological studies, favour wholism and emergence over reductionism or vice-versa. An important study in relation to this topic was conducted by Levitt et al (2020 ) who interviewed leading psychology researchers from a wide range of methodological traditions, around their stance in relation to the adopting a detached, objective research attitude or espousing the use of disciplined subjectivity. A striking finding from these interviews was that all of the research participants regarded both objectivity and subjectivity as serving valuable scientific purposes and had made use of their personal capacities for subjectivity and objectivity as necessary over the course of their careers.…”

“…A pluralistic perspective on research seeks to operate from the kind of both/and stance represented by informants in the Levitt et al (2020 ) study. This principle represents a central implication of the ethical implications of espousing a pluralist view of reality: if different individuals and groups hold contrasting beliefs about what is true, the ethical choice is between discounting, ignoring or suppressing the beliefs of others or engaging in dialogue that seeks to make bridges between alternative ways of thinking.…”

“…by an auditor or co-researcher in a qualitative study, through application of alternative statistical techniques and attention to outlier cases) as having potentially significant implications for understanding, research, practice and theory development. Diverging perspectives or findings arising from different data sources or participants are viewed as steps in a dialectical process that has the potential to lead to a new (or more differentiated) theory or synthesis ( Levitt et al, 2020 ). The existence of multiple ‘truths’ is not only a core philosophical assumption of pluralism but also is a routine aspect of the practice of psychotherapy: much of the process of therapy is based on the creation of meaning bridges, empathy and ways of talking and connecting that have the effect of allowing people to function within a multi-voiced intra- and interpersonal reality.…”