Dual roles of researchers in objectivism and subjectivism
Navigating truths:
The expression “lies, damned lies, and statistics” has long served as a pointed reminder of the risks associated with manipulating or misusing statistical information. To underscore the severity of intentional deception, the phrase could be extended to include more severe lies as “publication.”
Objectivism and subjectivism are two contrasting philosophical perspectives that shape how individuals perceive and interpret the world, especially in the realms of ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. Objectivism holds that truth exists independently of individual beliefs or opinions. It asserts that objective truths can be discovered through reason and evidence, and these truths are consistent regardless of personal perspectives. Subjectivism views truth as dependent on individual perspectives. Truth is seen as relative, varying from person to person based on their experiences, emotions, and interpretations.
Objectivism asserts the existence of an objective reality external to individual perception. It posits that reality exists independently of human consciousness, and there are absolute truths that can be discovered through reason and observation. This perspective can be risky as it may result in communities rejecting other beliefs, potentially causing racial tensions and even leading to riots. This rejection of diverse viewpoints can foster discord and harm the overall harmony within a community. It is essential to promote understanding and acceptance to mitigate such risks and build a more inclusive society.
Subjectivism, on the other hand, suggests that reality is constructed through individual perception and experience. It holds that what is considered “real” is subjective and varies from person to person, emphasizing the role of personal interpretation in shaping reality.
Objectivism posits that there are objective truths that can be known through reason and empirical evidence. Scientific methods and logical deduction are often emphasised as reliable means of obtaining knowledge. Subjectivism contends that knowledge is rooted in personal experiences, feelings, and interpretations.
Limitations of Objectivism
Objectivism tends to reduce complex human experiences and moral dilemmas into a rigid framework centered around rational self-interest. This oversimplification fails to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of human emotions, relationships, and ethical considerations.
Objectivism places a heavy emphasis on reason and rationality, often neglecting the importance of emotional intelligence in human decision-making. Subjectivism, on the other hand, recognises the significance of emotions in shaping our perceptions and moral judgments.
Embracing Subjectivism
Subjectivism allows for a more inclusive consideration of diverse perspectives, values, and cultural contexts. By acknowledging the subjectivity of human experiences, subjectivism embraces the richness of cultural diversity and encourages a more open-minded exploration of differing worldviews.
Subjectivism acknowledges the fluid and evolving nature of morality, recognising that ethical values may vary across individuals and societies. This flexibility allows for a more adaptive response to changing social, economic, and cultural dynamics.
Objectivism and Quantitative Vs Qualitative Research
Objectivism asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of the researcher’s perspective. This philosophical stance aligns with the quantitative research paradigm, characterized by the collection and analysis of numerical data. Quantitative methodologies are often favored for their precision, statistical rigor, and ability to establish causal relationships. Objectivist beliefs drive the popularity of quantitative research in various academic disciplines. The majority of international academic journals tend to lean towards a quantitative orientation. This preference is reflected in the publication of research articles that emphasise numerical data, statistical analyses, and empirical validation.
Qualitative research, mainly grounded in subjectivism and the understanding of context and meaning, holds sway in specific countries. Nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries have witnessed a surge in qualitative research methodologies. Scholars in these regions embrace the richness of qualitative data to explore nuanced aspects of human experiences and social phenomena.
Conversely, several countries exhibit a dominance of quantitative research. Nations such as the United States, China, Germany, and Japan have a strong tradition of quantitative methodologies. This can be attributed to a historical emphasis on positivism and empiricism, aligning with objectivist perspectives that seek to uncover universal truths through systematic observation and measurement.
These disparities can be traced back to the distinct cultural and constitutional foundations of various nations. In regions where a qualitative approach prevails, there tends to be a greater openness to diverse cultures, fostering a spirit of peace and harmony among nations, races, and religions. In contrast, countries embracing an objectivist cultural ethos have exhibited more conflicts among diverse communities, particularly in heterogeneous societies, with notable exceptions such as Japan and China where a unique cultural dynamic mitigates such conflicts. Understanding these cultural influences is crucial for promoting intercultural understanding and global cooperation.
Safeguarding Scientific Integrity
To mitigate the risks associated with misrepresentation, the scientific community relies on rigorous peer review processes, research ethics, and academic integrity standards. Journals and institutions play a crucial role in upholding the credibility of published research by scrutinising submissions for methodological soundness and ethical conduct.
The inherent tension between the institutional objectives, individual aspirations, and the broader responsibility to the community underscores a dual role that researchers often find themselves navigating. On one hand, aligning with institutional goals, especially in the context of publications for world rankings, may necessitate adopting an objectivist stance to conform to widely accepted paradigms and achieve recognition in academic circles. On the other hand, serving the community requires a more subjectivist approach to foster cohesiveness and co-existence with individuals who may hold diverse perspectives and beliefs.
Dual roles of researchers
In the pursuit of institutional goals, particularly those related to world rankings, researchers may feel compelled to adopt an objectivist stance. Objectivism, with its emphasis on empirical evidence, measurable outcomes, and adherence to established methodologies, aligns with the quantitative paradigms often favoured in academia. This approach may facilitate the publication of research that conforms to accepted norms, contributing to institutional prestige and ranking.
Researchers, driven by individual aspirations for career advancement may find that adhering to an objectivist approach facilitates easier publication. The pressure to meet institutional expectations for productivity and output may incentivize researchers to align their methodologies with prevailing paradigms that emphasize objectivity and quantifiability.
While institutional and individual goals are paramount, researchers also bear a responsibility to serve the broader community. Adopting a subjectivist stance becomes crucial in this context, as it allows for a more inclusive and empathetic understanding of diverse perspectives. Subjectivism recognizes the importance of context, personal experiences, and qualitative insights, fostering cohesiveness and co-existence with individuals who may hold differing beliefs.
Balancing Objectivism and Subjectivism:
Navigating this dual role requires a delicate balance between objectivism and subjectivism. Researchers can adopt an objectivist approach when addressing institutional and individual goals, ensuring the rigor and credibility of their work. Simultaneously, integrating subjectivist elements into research methodologies enables a more holistic understanding of complex issues, fostering harmony between different groups of communities, engagements and contributing to the diverse needs of society.
However, maintaining ethical standards is paramount in reconciling these dual roles. Researchers must be cognizant of the potential ethical dilemmas that may arise when aligning with institutional and individual goals. Striking a balance between institutional expectations, personal aspirations, and ethical considerations ensures that research outcomes contribute positively to both academic advancement and societal well-being.
In conclusion, the dual role of researchers involves navigating the complex terrain of institutional expectations, individual aspirations, and community service. Balancing objectivism with subjectivism allows researchers to meet institutional and individual goals while simultaneously contributing to the cohesiveness, harmony and co-existence of diverse perspectives within the broader community.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)
