The Myth of Objectivity: Whose knowledge is it?
with Nancy Jackson

Rapporteur: Elsa Auerbach

This workshop allowed people to explore what is meant by objectivity, and why it is such a powerful notion in relation to research.

Everyone has different concepts of objectivity, but most people think research has to be objective. Scientists use the word "objectivity" to mean a particular way of looking at things or analyzing an object and suspending judgement. This way of looking is unbiased, uses established procedures, can be verified, and is observable and reproducible and therefore valid.

The alternative, non-scientific research, aims to be systematic and transparent rather than "objective." It can

• be based on assumptions or make one's assumptions visible
• allow room for the unexpected, and for multiple perspectives and interpretation
• resist cutting things up artificially
• make explicit connections between data and interpretation
• be explicit about what we do with the data

Nancy encouraged people to think about how research is done. First, she reminded people to declare what they don't know, and to make public all the definitions, usages and vantage points they are aware of. Second, she suggested that people reformulate their question into one that starts by assuming that there are multiple perspectives and questions. Finally, ask the participants, those being researched, how to examine the issue. What does the insider start with? What does the outsider start with? How is research different depending on the positioning of the researcher? Whose knowledge is valued?

As we discussed these questions, new issues emerged:

• Do different kinds of knowledge serve different kinds of purposes?
• Is policy influenced by outsider knowledge, and practice influenced by insider knowledge?
• How to challenge the validity of empirical / evidence-based research?
• How can we systematize local knowledge?

"Objectivity" doesn't give us the "neutrality" it promises. Transparency, which reveals one's choices, limits and assumptions, can replace objectivity. The difference between the two is in how each deals with the complexity involved in understanding the social world. We need research that doesn't abandon this complexity.