Politics of Research

With politics in relation to research, the issue is how far it can be or should seek to be value free. The early and traditional argument was that social research should strive to be scientific and objective by emulating the practices and assumptions of the natural sciences, a philosophical position known as positivism. The key characteristics focused on using a value-free method, making logical arguments, and testing ideas against that which is observable to produce social facts. Such principles have always been subject to dispute. Nevertheless, they dominated mainstream thought during the 19th century and a considerable part of the 20th century.

More recently, alternative positions have prevailed. Positivism has been challenged as inappropriate to the [Page 832]social sciences, which is concerned with social actors' meanings, beliefs, and values. The reliance on quantitative methods, such as surveys, has been modified as greater legitimacy is afforded to in-depth qualitative studies. There has been a blurring of the boundaries between social research and policy and practice (Hammersley, 2000). As a result, the assumption that social science can produce objective knowledge has been challenged.

Hammersley (1995) has argued that it is necessary to ask three different questions as to whether social research is political. Can research be nonpolitical? Does research as practiced tend to be political? Shouldresearch be political? Some social scientists argue that it is impossible for research not to involve a political dimension. All research is, necessarily, influenced by social factors, such as how the topic is framed, what access to participants is possible, and the role of the researcher in the research process. Funding bodies also have a major impact in terms of which projects they finance and the conditions relating to this.

Others also claim that it is neither possible nor desirable for social scientists to adopt a disinterested attitude to the social world. Sociology, for instance, has always been driven by a concern for the “underdog” and by its willingness to challenge the status quo. Currently, feminist and antiracist research is explicitly aimed at bringing about change. However, there are still those who argue that research should not be directly concerned with any goal other than the production of knowledge. From this view, research has a limited capacity to deliver major political transformations, and such pursuits limit the value of research itself (Hammersley, 1995).

A possible way out of this conundrum is to distinguish between politics, on one hand, and objectivity in producing knowledge, on the other. Asking questions that are guided by a political or ethical point of view need not prevent a researcher from striving toward objectivity in the actual research. This involves using rigorous and systematic procedures throughout the research process, including during the analysis and when producing an account. Researchers are arguing that, even if there is no utopia of absolute objectivity for social scientists, this must still be an aspiration in the interest of generating robust knowledge and understandings (Christians, 2000).