Introduction
The relevancy of a research project is measured in terms of the new knowledge the research establishes and the applicability of the same knowledge in solving human problems. The kind of view on research determines the focus of the researcher (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 26). The view adopted on research affects how researchers design their research methodology and consequently, the kind of data they are able to retrieve from the field. Each research work has to have significance and validity (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 26). Therefore, adopting or having the right perspective view that leads to using effective methodologies is of critical importance.
There are two major views on research i.e. the objectivist and the subjectivist view. Subjectivism is a way of looking at subjectivity, which is a quality that characterizes all rational animals (Ratner, 2008). As subjects, we think and interpret or understand data or activities as us. This means that our understanding is limited by our capacity or disposition. It is this element of subjectivity that makes experiences unique to each individual.
Subjectivity takes different forms depending on how one looks at it. Subjectivism is warranted by the socially embedded meaning that informs relationships or interactions (Ratner, 2008). The symbolic meanings give a deeper meaning to reality as experienced. Objectivity and subjectivity are elements every research has to contend with. Objectivity in research refers to impartiality in the investigation, recording and handling of data by researchers. Subjectivity issues in research refer to the acceptability of personal opinions and feelings in the investigations, recording and handling of data by researchers. The interplay between the need for objectivity and balancing subjective judgments poses a paradox (Ratner, 2008). If not looked into, subjectivism and objectivism can create a conflict of interest in research work.
Background
The background of research refers to already established facts about a phenomenon understudy in the research. The research background plays a critical role in research design. A researcher can only develop relevant questions and methodologies to address gaps after doing a thorough background search.
The objectivists and subjectivists differ on the relevancy of background to the research. According to objectivists, background research is important and is a starting point for further research. The background research, for objectivists, necessarily, bears directly on the final findings from research work. For subjectivists, background research is important but is not a necessary prerequisite. The subjectivist view understands reality as a moving concern and thus the reality of established facts is not the same reality that will inform present research (Coghlan& Brannick, 2005, p. 23).
Based on an objectivist view, many research proposals have been turned down in universities and other research institutions. Authorities in the research field demand that researchers establish clear variables before embarking on research. Researchers in the same vein present a list of variables as well as definitions. The background research, according to objectivists, must explain why variables come about and the connections between them (Sutton & Staw, 1995, p. 115). This requires the use of historical data to determine trends and variations. The established trends and variations form the basis for further research.
The subjectivists, although agreeing that background research is important, argue that researchers have to go beyond the background research in the search for influences on variations and trends. This view holds that data provides support for theory but cannot be itself treated as theory. Editors and reviewers argue that most authors gather empirical results from previous researches and develop them directly into what they claim is a theory for the research. However, historical data collected from an objectivist point of view widens the error in the generalizations made.
Sutton & Staw (1995) advise researchers to eliminate data, references, variables, hypothesis and diagrams in a theory statement. The two scholars argue that reference does not qualify for theory. This kind of reasoning about theory tends to support the subjectivist view on the background of the research. Background research only sets a basis for concept argument which the authors have to acknowledge.
By listing the names of theories or schools thought without exactly explaining the contents of the theories or schools of thought, one does not contribute to the theory of the research. Citing the theories in a paper without revealing to the reader the context of their arguments does not tell a lot. It makes more sense when the subjective context of the background research is exposed so as to help a reader of a research paper understand the developments at a more realistic level rather than abstract level (Coghlan& Brannick, 2005, p.49).
Generalizations
The need for objectivity is best understood when considering how individual researchers’ own subjective experiences and knowledge can affect the analysis of research findings (University of Manchester, 1988, p.40). Due to subjective influences from a researcher on data in terms of how he or she analyses it, credibility problems often arise. Therefore, when it comes to generalizations, the effort has to be made so as not to assume personal or subjective opinions are universally true.
Research is largely inductive in its nature. Although research often employs deductive logic in measuring consistency, it generally looks at specifics to establish generalizations or universal positions. Between qualitative and quantitative research, qualitative research is more inductive while quantitative is more deductive (Kyale, 1996, p. 28). When it comes to generalizations, the objectivists argue that personal opinions or feelings cannot form the basis for generalizations. However, the subjective view holds that the inter-subjectivity element that allows for individuals to understand each other’s experiences enables or makes it possible for generalizations to be based on or derived from individuals’ feelings.
Inter-subjectivity is referring to the idea that our experiences and feelings resonate in other people’s experiences and feelings (Coulon, 1995, P. 123). Therefore, although experiences are unique, there is a high likelihood that given the same conditions we would feel the same. It is a universal that when one looses a dear one, he or she grieves or feels the pain of loss. Some people have been known to feel nothing or no pain when a bad thing happens. However, such cases are exceptional; the truth is that loss causes pain. When a person loses a job, unless he or she has another exciting option, he or she will feel the pain of loss.
Therefore, when it comes to generalizing in research, the objectivists argue for the basing generalizations on only impartial elements or impartially obtained data. Unlike the objectivists, the subjectivists indicate that empiricism and related objectivism does not do reality justice. When it comes to social realities, subjective notions and experiences can inform universal postulations about reality or phenomenon.
Further, the subjectivists argue that all generalizations have subjective elements. A generalization is an abstraction based on observations whether empirically obtained or qualitatively established. It is a general rule of saying the utilitarian ethical theory that one should do that which benefits the majority. The universal or general rule is based on certain subjective considerations. It is in the feelings of individuals that a good that satisfies many is better than one that satisfies just a few.
Finally, on generalization, those who appreciate the subjectivist view to research indicate that in liu of searching for an ideal standard or environment also known as controlling the environment, artificial environments that do not totally represent reality are created. The artificiality created; although helpful in studying characteristics of particular factors, mutilate the reality of the factor leading to results that are false. Although objectivists argue that controlling the environment is critical to zeroing in on factors and avoiding outside influence, the creation of artificial environment somehow has effects on the results (Neuman, 2006, p. 113).
Consequently, generalizations promulgated based on such like controlled experiments are objective but they are lacking in something. They do not represent the reality or natural situation as it is. In dealing with chemical elements or inanimate things in a lab, such control does not affect the research. However, where people and even animals in general are concerned, taking them out of their natural environment mutilates the findings.
Observations made and generalizations reached out of such cultured experimental researches are not as objective as objectivists may want to posit them to be. When it comes to social researches, taking people out of their natural environment often enlists different responses to stimuli. An African American taken out of his or her cultural setting does not continue responding and reacting in the same way. His or her thinking and focus change and thus any fact established of him or she cannot be representative of the original African American’s natural reality.
The import of the subjectivists view on research is that generalizations have to reflect the subjective natural reality of a people or animals. Although generalizations are abstract, they should reflect the contextual meanings or derivations as opposed to objectivist derivations that are far removed from reality (Neuman, 2006, p. 116).
Strengths
The objectivists’ view of research has much strength. At the core of its strengths is that it promotes integrity in research work. The objectivists focus on researchers putting aside their personal opinions and subjective feelings in search of truth and nothing but truth or facts. As already discussed, research can easily be compromised in a number of ways. Individuals with personal vendetta or ulterior motives could easily use research to justify their skewed thinking or plans. For example, as earlier indicated, a tobacco investor could engage in researching activities with the aim of justifying that tobacco has no relation with cancer cases.
The second strength of the objectivist view is that it encourages best practices and development of standards and guidelines for research work (Edmondson, & McManus, 2007, 134). Research work, like all other professional disciplines, needs direction and regulation. The objectivist view of research support and aids towards establishment of universal applications or models in research work.
The greatest strength of the subjectivist view of research is it allows the researchers more freedom. Originality is an important aspect of research work. When the subjective view condones subjective based approaches to study of phenomena, it stimulates further originality and creativity in research work. According to Weick (1995, p. 55) most journals are suffering the rush for submission with half baked theory. DiMaggio (1995, p.79) alludes that most authors of research papers tend to approximate theory rather than develop a precise theory about the topic of study. The estimation of theory results from people assuming that by applying scientific principles, the connection between facts that they make are worthy the title theory.
Feldman (2004, p. 111), proposes a number of guidelines which he stress a standard theory must satisfy. First, he suggested that all questions of study are important and should be explored as widely enough as possible without paying more attention to some at the expense of others that may be treated as trivial. This view tends to support the subjectivist who advocate beyond impartial study to more involved and subjective reality engaging approaches.
Weaknesses
The objectivist view of research has one major weakness. It does not take into account the influence of the subjective context on the subject under study. As already discussed, it tends towards abstraction and removing factors from contexts thus not capturing full reality.
The subjectivity view looks at reality more wholesomely but fails when it comes to standards and guidelines in research. It is not easy to set standards where the subjectivist view of research is concerned. What happens is individuals influencing research findings and affecting analysis terribly such that the findings can only serve selfish un-academic ends.
Applications
The objectivist view holds sway when it comes to academic research. To avoid conflict of interest, funders and academia general insists on what is regarded as objective research work. Universities and other research have an extra mile by instituting objectivity policies. It is believed by objectivists that objectivity ensures research validity in terms of verifiability.
As a standard, researchers submitting research proposals to financiers for financing often are required to indicate their financial interest and subjective interest in area of research (Mills, Wiebe, & Durepos, 2009, p. 174). When researchers submit research proposals to academic bodies or institutions, they are often asked to indicate their financial interest. Further, they are also required to establish the financier’s interest that motivated him or her to invest in the research.
Finally, the researcher’s personal interest in the area of study has to be scrutinized. An individual’s interest in an area of study determines how objective he or she can be in tackling the given issue. These steps are taken to ensure research work contributes to the body of knowledge rather than furthering personal biases (Mills, Wiebe, & Durepos, 2009, p. 180).
Personal interest refers to what the research means to individual researcher. If one set out on a research project so as to a personal point or settle a score with the findings, the chances of him or her being objective are limited. Such a person would be tempted to consciously or even unconsciously doctor the investigation to favor his or her stand point (Marshacn- Piekkari, & Welch, 2004, p. 64). The probability of an individual choosing to research in an area for selfish reasons is very high. Many selfish social experiments have been witnessed that do not add value academically or to social systems. Therefore, by applying contentions of the objectivists, subjective intentions are eliminating from biasing research work.
Financiers of research projects are also scrutinized properly because as the saying goes, the one who pays a piper calls the tunes. If a tobacco industry player instituted or financed a research aimed at establishing intake of carcinogens found in tobacco and cancer, it would be very suspect. In case the findings were to point to there being of such a relationship, the financier could easily influence the investigators or even black mail them (Marshacn- Piekkari, & Welch, 2004, p. 71).
Finally, the financial interest of the researcher is monitored because if left on their own, research will not seek truth but rather to complete research and earn their huge perks. High financial interests by researchers make them prone to arm-twisting or blackmail. Secondly, such a culture lowers research standards as researcher engage in projects for the purposes of getting money. The objectivist view demands that a researcher impartially investigates phenomenon. If there is financial gain based on hours put in or results, researchers are likely to expedite or slow processes so as to earn more. Such a trend is unethical and kills the academic spirit that should guide researching.
Subjectivism or a subjectivist approach finds application especially in psychology and humanistic sciences. The tendency to look at human beings as objects is unacceptable (McMurray, 2004, p. 95). It is encouraged that human beings be understood as per the extension of their being. Given they are capable of subjective experiences that cannot be repeated, researching on human beings has to necessarily take that into account.
To research and understand the realms in which people live, some sociologists have also suggested a subjective approach. This requires that the symbolic meanings of things are considered and taken into account (McMurray, 2004, p. 125). In psychology, studying the human person has to take into account the subjective meanings that the individuals gives to phenomenon. It is only when the research understands the research subject’s subjectivity that research can say anything meaningful about such an individual and by extension society.
Bias
Bias generally is leaning personal opinion in favor of one thing against the other. Research can be biased if a relationship under study is misinterpreted to invalidly mean or carry certain connotations. The objectivists view on research interprets bias as infusion of subjective understandings or feelings into the understanding or analysis of data. The subjectivist view looks at bias as the detaching of phenomenon or a factor from its natural context and making generalizations about it.
Conclusion
In the foregoing discussions, it has become clear that the objectivist view of research stresses impartiality while the subjectivist view stresses approaching phenomenon or factor under study holistically. Impartiality is important towards avoiding generalizations that have no basis. However, in the impartial search for truth, care has to be taken not to mutilate reality. It has been argued that, abstracting a factor out of context does an injustice to the final findings of a research. What happens is that partial truths about the phenomena i.e. what strikes most is abstracted and held as the truth. However, the truth is that, reality is more holistic or profound than the controlled study or artificial environment created could allow.
It thus follows that adopting both the subjectivist and objectivist view towards research is more beneficial and realistic. When it comes to looking at a research background, the objectivist view allows for through scrutiny of historical data to establish trends and variations. The established trends and variations inform the choice of variables that are tested in the actual research. However, bearing in mind the contentions of the subjectivist view, it has to be noted that historical data does not fully capture the context. Further, the reality in which phenomena was found in history is not the same one at present. This means that each new research has to be approached with openness and flexibility. The objectivist view tends to lead people into statistics’ based errors and misrepresentation of social realities.
A holistic approach advocated by subjectivists notwithstanding, objectivists are right in demanding streamlining of thinking processes and investigation procedures in research. These standards and procedures help in entrenching best practices in research and avoiding fallacious conclusions due to vested interests or lack of wisdom.
References
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T., 2005, Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, Sage, London. Web.
Coulon, A., 1995, Ethnomethodology, 4th Ed, Sage, London. Web.
DiMaggio, J., 1995, Comments on What Theory is Not, Princeton University, Princeton. Web.
Edmondson, C. & McManus, S., 2007, Methodological Fit in Management Field Research, Harvard School of Business, London. Web.
Feldman, D., 2004, What We are Talking about When we Talk About Theory, Sage Publications, London. Web.
Kyale, S., 1996, Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, 4th Ed, Sage, London. Web.
Marshacn- Piekkari, R., & Welch, C., 2004, Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business, Edward Elgar Publishers, Montgomery. Web.
McMurray, A., 2004, Research: A Commonsense Approach, Thomson Learning Nelson, Ontario. Web.
Mills, A., J., Wiebe, E., & Durepos, G., 2009, Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Sage, London. Web.
Neuman, W., L., 2006, Basics of Social Research: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches, 2nd Ed, Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, New York. Web.
Ratner, C., 2008, Subjectivism, Sage. Web.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A., 2009, Research Methods for Business Students, 5th Ed, Prentice Hall, New York. Web.
Sutton, I. & Staw, M., 1995, What Theory is not? Web.
University of Manchester, 1988, Research in Education, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Web.
Weick, E., 1995, What Theory is Not, Theorizing Is, University of Michigan, Michigan. Web.