Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
means being able to relate to external phenomena as opposed to one’s intentions, feeling, or
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
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
where students believe they have been treated with understanding, concern, fairness and
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
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
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.
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
suggestion is useful because it allows us to examine under what criteria a critique or suggestion
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
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
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