Reflexivity and Objectivity in Research (Natasha)

Several of the readings this week dealt with questions of how researchers ought to position themselves in their own research and the ethics surrounding those positions. The articles called to mind the work of one of my favorite contemporary anthropologists, Charles Hale, a man whose work on activist scholarship has forged new methodological and theoretical paths. Hale, like Lawless, has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as true objectivity when it comes to humanistic research. Regardless of what the researcher does to divorce herself from her values, presuppositions, and interests, she always carries some trace of them into her fieldwork and analysis.

This lack of objectivity was evident in Lawless's research conclusions and the decisions she made in disseminating her research back to the research subjects prior to publishing her work. So, Hale argues - and this is now a pillar of activist anthropology - that the researcher ought to recognize her subjective position in a research scenario and use whatever leverage that position might hold to more fully benefit the research community which, in Hale's case, tends to be marginalized groups that don't have the same access to political capital as those conducting the research.

I agree with Hale's perspective but found it hard to put into practice in my own ethnographic field research. I also find that there is a lot of academic resistance to scholars who are open about their biases in their research. It remains a central tenant of good humanistic research that an author maintains a lack of bias in their work, although Hale along with many of the authors we read for today illustrate the futility of trying to obtain pure objectivism.

As important as I think it is to acknowledge one's subjective position as a researcher, I also think that reflexivity in research can be taken too far. In the 1990s and early 2000s, a slew of anthropologists fully embraced the notion of reflexivity. Unfortunately they did so so enthusiastically that reading the work published from this movement at times feels like reading the personal journals of the authors rather than an account of whatever it was they were studying. In other words, the focus shifted inward to the extent that the original research was significantly under emphasized.

To be clear, this is not what Hale or any of the authors we read are arguing for. However, it is a pitfall that researchers going down the path of reflexivity in their work should be aware of. Ultimately, what Hale argues - and what many of the authors this week can be used to support - is that subjectivity should be acknowledged and then used to strengthen the research in ways that directly benefit the research community.