Is it really possible to be objective in psychology?
Read the following article (taken from Cardwell, M. et al (2009) Psychology for A2 AQA A 4th edition, Collins pp509-511) and highlight the key points
The traditional view of science is that all scientific observation is wholly objective. However, more recently it has been acknowledged that total objectivity maynot be achievable, even though it is still regarded as being important.
Popper (1972) challenged the assumption of total objectivity in any science when he argued that all people, including scientists, have beliefs, preferences, expectations and interests and that these influence the observations they make and could introduce bias into their scientific investigations. According to Popper, it is simply not possible to observe something without having some idea of what you are looking for, He demonstrated this during a lecture when he told his audience to ‘Observe!’ Predictably, the response of the audience was ‘Observe what?’ What we observe may partly depend on what we expect to see and in a research context is driven by relevant hypotheses or theories (i.e. the researcher’s theoretical orientation).
The control of variables is regarded as a key means of enhancing objectivity in experimental research. However, it could be argued that what is controlled and what is not controlled is based on the researcher’s judgement, i.e. what he or she thinks is important to control and also what it is possible and/or desirable to control.
Moreover, it may not be possible for an experimenter to be confident that a given stimulus is identical for all participants and has a standard effect. There is an important distinction between what the eye sees (the sensation) and what the individual actually sees (perception). Perception involves the interpretation of sensory data and is affected by a vast range of factors, including an individual’s past experience, expectations and motivation. This determines the meaning that is attributed to it, which in turn will influence a participant’s response. To illustrate this, consider what happens when you think you have seen someone you know and are preparing to greet them. Suddenly you realize this person is a complete stranger. The image on our retinas has not changed, just our knowledge and expectations. Clearly, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the image on the retina and the experience of seeing; as Hanson (1958) describes it:
‘There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball’. It could be argued, therefore, that experimental stimuli do not exist in a purely objective way and may differ from individual to individual.
There is also increased interest in the social context of scientific activity and its implications for claims of objectivity (Woolgar 1988). A psychological experiment may be regarded as a social situation, involving expectations of the participants. Orne (1962) studied the social psychology of psychological experiments and described the demand characteristics that occur when participants try to make sense of the situation they find themselves in and act in accordance with what they perceive its demands to be.
Mitroff (1974) studied a group of lunar rock scientists who suggested that the idea of science being entirely objective was both naive and misguided. The scientists claimed that good scientists had their own beliefs and points of view, which they defend robustly, and these influenced their thinking and therefore the way they carried out their research.
Some psychologists, including those who support a social constructivist viewpoint, also argue that data can never be wholly objective, but rather that our knowledge and understanding of the social world is based on social constructions. That is to say, our interpretation of psychological data is determined by prevailing cultural, social and historical influences.
Taken together, it can be argued that there are no facts ‘out there’ waiting to be observed because the very act of observation is not neutral and never can be. This undermines the idea that scientists can achieve total objectivity through careful observation from a perspective outside of what is being studied. It implies that objectivity is a matter of degree and it is unrealistic to expect total objectivity in any science, even physics. If this is the case, it is clearly even more difficult, and some would argue impossible, to achieve total objectivity in psychology, as it focuses on the study of human behaviour, mental processes and experience, involving people studying other people.
It is important to remember that researchers using qualitative research methods (such as unstructured interviews) do not necessarily view objectivity as an indication of the worth of their research in the same way as quantitative researchers do. Qualitative researchers are far more concerned with understanding meanings and people’s inner worlds; they often use participants subjective feelings and reflections as a key source of data Rather than focusing on objectivity, qualitative researchers aim to demonstrate the confirmability of their findings by drawing on other sources’ of data and/or additional perspectives in an attempt to verify any claims they make.