Objectivity is one of the most cherished ideals of the educational research community. In fact, it is so important that if our work is accused of being subjective, its status as a source of knowledge sinks slowly into the horizon like a setting sun. Yet, though we use the term objective with ease in our conversations and in our literature, its meaning is not particularly clear, nor, I will argue, are the consequences of the tacit, almost unexamined assumptions upon which it rests. When we speak of being objective, just what do we mean? One thing, apparently, is that we have taken pains to try to diminish or eliminate bias. To be objective or to do an objective study is to be or do something that is not primarily about ourselves, but about the world itself. Objectivity means in some contexts being fair, open to all sides of the argument. In other contexts, objectivity refers to a method or procedure through which we acquire information; an objective test is an example of such a procedure. In common discourse, to be objective or to have an objective view is to see things the way they are. When we conceptualize objectivity, we ineluctably imply its opposite, subjectivity, and between the two there is no doubt about which one comes out on top. We want to be objective in our views, objective in our methods, and above all, to have objective knowledge. To use the vernacular, we want to see and to tell it like it is.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elliot W. Eisner (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: