Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston.
Psychol Methods. 2022 Aug;27(4):589-605. doi: 10.1037/met0000363. Epub 2020 Oct 12.
Given the challenges to the notion of objectivity posed by social psychological research on investigator effects, constructivist and critical epistemological perspectives, and the introduction of qualitative research methods in psychology, the investigators examined how leading methodologists understand the function of objectivity and subjectivity in psychological science. The aim of the study was to learn how contemporary methodologists view these issues so as to communicate converging perspectives to the field and inform methods education. A brief historical review of the concept of objectivity in psychology is presented to contexualize this examination. Eleven accomplished methodologists with expertise in a range of methods and epistemological perspectives were interviewed. Findings from a grounded theory analysis demonstrated that all the participants expressed concern about the belief that science is unaffected by scientists' perspectives, believing researchers and educators should problematize this perspective. Recommendations from participants included that science be viewed as a value-laden endeavor in which scientists systematically conduct research from multiple epistemological perspectives, and/or utilize diverse methods tailored to address their questions. Scientific procedures were detailed that could curtail dangers of either unchecked subjectivity or a false sense of objectivity. A functional analysis of these constructs, objectivity and subjectivity, suggested they both serve a similar scientific and an ethical purpose-to prevent the premature foreclosure of possible understanding because of the expectations of researchers. The mainstreaming of disclosures about the perspectives and positions of investigators, as well as their management, and the implementation of epistemological and methodological pluralism are encouraged to support this ethic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
鉴于社会心理学研究对调查员效应、建构主义和批判认识论观点以及心理学中定性研究方法的引入对客观性概念提出的挑战，研究者们考察了主要方法论者如何理解客观性和主观性在心理科学中的作用。本研究旨在了解当代方法论者如何看待这些问题，以便向该领域传达趋同的观点，并为方法教育提供信息。本文简要回顾了心理学中客观性的概念，以便为这一考察提供背景。对 11 位具有不同方法和认识论观点专长的资深方法论者进行了访谈。扎根理论分析的结果表明，所有参与者都对科学不受科学家观点影响的信念表示关注，他们认为研究人员和教育者应该对这种观点提出质疑。参与者的建议包括将科学视为一个充满价值观的努力，科学家可以从多个认识论角度系统地进行研究，或者利用适合解决其问题的多种方法。详细说明了可以遏制主观或虚假客观性危险的科学程序。对这些建构的功能分析，即客观性和主观性，表明它们都具有类似的科学和伦理目的——防止由于研究人员的期望而过早地排除可能的理解。鼓励披露调查员的观点和立场，并对其进行管理，以及实施认识论和方法论多元化，以支持这一伦理。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
