In Hawkesworth’s chapter (2007), Truth and Truths in Feminist Knowledge Production, Hawkesworth describes objectivity and feminism’s response to it. One way that knowledge is generated is through scientific research. Most scientists embrace the positivist belief of objectivity. Objectivity relies on a researchers ability to “cast off” their biases, opinions, experiences, beliefs, etc when researching phenomena of interest. It is believed that the researcher is now “value-free” and able to let the objects of study “speak for themselves” instead of being interpreted through the researchers’ subjectivity. The scientific method is used by scientists as a series of steps to be used objectively to create universal truths that allow for past events to be explained and future events to be predicted.
Hawkesworth (2007) writes that feminists critique the use of objectivity for several reasons. First, these scientific “truths” of phenomenon are based on generalizations that may or may not be found true in every situation that the phenomenon exists. Second, the human mind is active and cannot be “turned off” to ensure value-free objectivity. Third, scientific observations are intrinsically linked to scientific practices. These observations do not “stand alone” but are influenced by scientific study, method, and practice. Since feminists do not believe that objectivity can ensure generalized knowledge, several responses have been proposed to the scientific notion of objectivity. Two responses to objectivity are standpoint theory with strong objectivity and situated knowledges.
Feminists argue that knowledge is socially constructed (Harding, 1991). Standpoint theory is the belief that a person is influenced by their experiences and environment. Interpretation of research is also influenced by these standpoints. Standpoint theory allows the researcher to position herself so that the reader knows all of the factors that influence their conclusions about their research. Standpoint theory embraces the researcher’s positionality. This identification of standpoint allows for a more diverse and complete story to be told about the research. Instead of trying to be neutral about the phenomenon of interest, researchers identify their influences and in doing so practice “strong objectivity.” (Harding, 1991).
Harding (1991) and Haraway (1988) argue that objectivity can be used in feminist theory to critique how knowledge is created and to create meaning (Haraway, 1988). Harding (2007) argues that objectivity, in a positivist sense, cannot be created. Harding suggests that differences in results of experiments can be caused by different “values, interests, and assumptions” (pp. 56) rather than a lack of good science practices. Strong objectivity allows for understanding of a researcher’s standpoint and how standpoint creates the lens through which data will be analyzed. Strong objectivity allows for marginalized voices to be included in the production of knowledge. Instead of only including value-free voices, all voices can be included leading to a more diverse understanding of phenomenon.
The use of strong objectivity often brings cries of relativism from the science community (Harding 2007, Haraway 1988). Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge another’s experience because it is not our own. Objectivism is the belief that a value-neutral space can be created to ensure knowledge construction that is free of bias. Haraway (1988) answers these critics in her argument for using “situated knowledges” in research. She argues that instead of created a dichotomy between objectivism and relativism; situated knowledges can encompass both objectivism and relativism.
I want to argue for a doctrine and practice of objectivity that privileges contestation, deconstruction, passionate construction, webbed connections, and hope for transformation of systems of knowledge and ways of seeing. (Haraway, 1988, p. 585).
Instead of generalizing knowledge construction, strong objectivity and situated knowledges allow for researchers to bring their experiences into their interpretations of what they are researching.
An example of the importance of identification of a researcher’s position to the phenomenon of interest is in my interpretation of the book Gender Matters by Leonard Sax. Sax (2005) writes extensively of the brain-based differences between boys and girls and how they learn differently. He suggests teaching boys and girls differently in school. He does not present his positionality to his research. However, a recurring theme in the book is the overmedication of children due to ADD/ADHD diagnoses. While most of his research is grounded in gender stereotypes, his suggestions for teaching strategies often are ways to alleviate ADD/ADHD symptoms without medication. His beliefs about medicating children with ADD/ADHD influence his conclusions and reinforce gender stereotypes.
Standpoint theory with strong objectivity and situated knowledges allows for researchers to continually ponder, reflect, and critique their position to the phenomenon of interest. Generalizations of truth can be disrupted and specific, accurate version of truth can be told when positionality is included in research.
No comments:
Post a Comment