服务承诺
资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达
51Due提供Essay，Paper，Report，Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导，同时涵盖Personal Statement，转学申请等留学文书代写。
51Due将让你达成学业目标51Due将让你达成学业目标51Due将让你达成学业目标51Due将让你达成学业目标私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企，高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展
积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈Some problems in establishing objectivity in social science---Essay代写范文
2016-08-22 来源: 51Due教员组 类别: Essay范文
Essay代写范文：Some problems in establishing objectivity in social science这篇Essay范文简要讨论了客观性的问题,客观性的含义可以是多种多样的，在一定程度上是难以界定的。随着经济的发展和科技的发展，客观上的客观性变得越来越流行，越来越重要了。对社会的客观性问题进行了分析,研究结果对社会科学的发展和其他领域的科学发展有一定的积极作用。
1.0Introduction
1.1A brief introduction on the issues of ‘objectivity’
Most scientists have considered the concept of ‘objectivity’ as their fundamental principle in studying something on nature or on society. ‘Objectivity’ has become the more important than other knowing styles with the development of technology and economy. Some scientists also think of objectivity as the most wonderful success or accomplishment in the history of Western culture. However, in recent years, objectivity has been doubted in some areas, which has been accused of being used by the powerful people to reach certain goals for a long time. Although the attention on objectivity is also continuous, the focus on it has become a little less than before in the scientific feeds. The status of objectivity has been very high in both the natural and physical sciences, but some people also argue that objectivity is not as important in social science as in the past. There are many issues that have been put forward by the critics in the social sciences. Some of the issues will be discussed in the paper.
1.2The meaning of ‘objectivity'
There are many various definition and ideas on objectivity. The word ‘objectivity’ is now used by people in some confusing ways. At present, the word meaning of objectivity consists several aspects, such as the metaphysical, moral and methodological respects, which has created some issues in itself (Charles, 1969). In order to offer some discussion on the issues of setting up objectivity in the social sciences, the essay will try to describe the true meaning of objectivity and the meaning of it to the people who employ it. This explanation is very important in preventing the readers from becoming lost in the peripatetic which means the Labyrinth of fraudulent ‘chimeras', mythical, positivist-like and foundationalist. This paper will help readers to avoid the wrong interpretations by expounding the illusive terms, which will also provide an insightful analysis on the history of it, such as the origin of the usage of ‘objectivity’, the ending of it and the present status of it. After clarifying the tight relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, the paper will analyze some necessary problems in setting up objectivity owing to the rejection of the value-free studies on society-culture and the usage of the concept of Paradigms (Christos, 1995). In the essay, the critical tradition and the consensual validation will also be employed as the methods to solve the issues of objectivity. Although objectivity tends to loss the battle in epistemology and the theory of standpoint displays one of the most intense arguments against objectivity. The concise overview on the meaning of objectivity discussions will offer a common consensus on the meaning of objectivity, which shows that the discussion is open as well and may be for the future.
2.0The interpretation on the implication of ‘objectivity’
2.1The consensual definition of ‘objectivity’
The first fundamental issue of the meaning of objectivity is in obtaining a kind of consensual definition. Popper has not considered carefully on the history and the meaning of objectivity and he believes that it is not necessary for human beings to consider it. However, Datson considers that it is essential to recognize the time and the way by which this word and other things intersect. The selection of the word that is attached to the things is not arbitrary at all (David, 1989). The dominating notion in the present usage means particularly to a perspectival objectivity. The perspectival objectivity means the way in understanding, an idea or a kind of thought is much more objective when it depends on the peculiarities of the personal makeup and the status in the world or on the traits of the special kind of creature. The present usage of this word is a little confusing to some degree. It has been used as the same meaning with empirical for science, fair and for ration. There are some shifts between the interpretations on the objective truth in the scientific proclaims, the objective behaviors of researchers and the objective process which can ensure the findings. In origin, the term has intense relationship to scholastic philosophy when it is relating to the goals of thought, instead of those outside. Descartes has noted down some degrees of the objective facts, but the employment of this word at that time is not conforming to the current notions of objectivity. Kant has then used this word to refer to the technical terms that was employed in philosophy, as relating to the outside aims, but instead of the related kinds that are the premise of experience (Davis, 1981). In the year of 1817, Coleridge formed the opposition of subjectivity and objectivity, leading the term much closer to the current interpretation and employment of it.
2.2The ‘objectivity’ and ‘nature’
At present, all the meanings relating objectivity will be called nature, which is confined to the term to the material meaning and the passive sense, as including all the cases by which the existence of it is known by human beings. From another aspect, the conclusion of subjectivity may be comprehended in the name of intelligence and the self concept. With the juxtaposition of the subjectivity and the objectivity, the definition of objectivity is generally formed. This inevitable relation is full of doubts within the social ideas, especially due to the definition of the term is what it is not. With the misunderstandings and traits they obtain by the automatic oppositional relationship given onto them (Egan, 2002). This kind of oppositional relationship displays the division of the social ideas into the polarized diametric ones between the divided words. The objective aspect is proud of the terms, such as structure, macro, totality, and determinism. The subjective side consists terms such as personal, micro, spontaneity and the agency. For the subjective and objective dichotomy, the words are considered as exclusive at the same time, with one thought of social facts based on the one or other sets of terms. The dissimilarities between subjectivity and the objectivity has been intensely conceptualized by Sharrok and Grieffenhagen. The difference between them is always concluded to the problem that ‘is reality displayed in personal concepts or is the fact external to it?’ Some objectivists have used the means to adopt an external or excellent views and seems to exclude actors; individual experience. Symobolic interactions ethnomethodologists has the characteristics that are similar to the subjectivists, are not considered as the personal experience. Objectivism suggests that social facts can not be decreased to the experience of the subjects, but the subjectivists have argued that ‘The way that the social world looks like is the most legitimate topics that can be offered to the social analyst to do research’. This is the single reality, and others are the basic artificial creation of the sociologists. However, for the objectivists, the objective, external and neutral researchers are the ones who can get the reality, but the social members are limited to the subjective appearances.
2.3The dualism of objective-subjective
Many methods have been used the dualism of objective-subjective to conquer the dualism between subjectivity and objectivity, which considers that the two means as too simple. The challengers include the life-world and system sketch and the practice theory (Fitzsimmons, 2014). This kind of challengers obtained a status depicted towards the objectivism, especially by the phenomenon’s critics, which can be seen with the Bourdieu. He discusses that the subjects is equipped with a comparatively immature belief that they have not been restricted to act, but they are not careful on the conditions in society and in culture which can form the dispositions to take some action. The subjectivism has imagined the social reality as the true conditions. Bourdieu has the belief that the reality of society beyond the reach of the awareness of the subjects. The scientists on reality should not accept the na?ve standpoint to be the theoretical one (Farrington, 2012). Bourdieu has warned that one person has the right and responsibility to ensure the acceptance of the account of accounts, when one person has not raised the individual contribution to the science in the social world. The difference between Bourdieu and the perceived subjectivity of phenomenology has been emphasized too much by Bourdieu. It also continues to assign the beliefs to the necessity to an objectivist method.
3.0The views of Max Weber
3.1 The methods fail to offer objectivity to the study on social nature
Max Weber is one of the most influential and famous social scientists in the last century, criticized more strongly against objectivity. He has put forward the idea that the objectivity will end up without necessity to mourn in the near future. He has the belief that both means of the natural sciences —— Naturnwissenschaften - or the ‘spiritual sciences ' ??—— Geisteswissenschaften——provided a way that can give the objectivity to do research on the nature of the society. He has the belief that the science on society has a clear aim in theory, means, issues and the object. The aims of them should not be included in the natural science, but if the room has some older people, it is necessary to offer the products without being included in the sciences on nature. For instance, he held the view that it wasn’t the goal of the social sciences to set up a hypothetical- deductive system based on the law. Although the relations may have had an excellent heuristic value, there was not too much, if there is any problem, it may be the causal status (Girouard, 1984). He also argues that a phenomenon in social and culture has very dissimilar traits from the main matter of the sciences in nature. He also assumes that the observing languages in social-culture do not exist, which are very neutral in theory and independent in logic. The interest of the social researchers in theory has formed the collection of the phenomena in society as a social issue.
3.2 The introduction of ‘relative objectivity’
Methodenstreit is a kind of ideal modes, which has led several scientists to put forward the assumptions of them before they began to do any kind of research. Thus, the notion of the relative objectivity comes into being before long. When some people analyzing something in a subjective way, there will be intersubjectivity existing by which people can understand the means in which the reports would be biased. However, no one could be absolutely objective, and everything in the world can be interpreted in a subjective aspect (Gourvish, 1994). There is no such a thing as absolute objective. The study or analysis on culture and the social affairs is also full of various kinds of interpretations, which can lead to the subjectivity in the research. The one-sided ideas do not exist in the life of human beings. All human beings have some kinds of desires, assumptions, individual hopes, and some background theories, which can affect the viewpoints of any individual. The values of human beings can affect the issues that are chosen for the social scientific study and the way in which the general laws are employed in interpreting the specific social facts. All the knowledge of specific reality comes from a special viewpoint. Human beings’ values can also have an influence on the decision of the results or conclusions, the racemization on the facts and the evaluation on the evidence. The facts in society are decided by the means and theories which can produce the collection. In fact, the means and theories have created the facts in reality (Greasley, 2013). The personal observations, analyzing theories and the laden of values are always limited to a certain kind of paradigm, which can be the framework of something. The investigators often work with the limitation of certain paradigm as well. The paradigm can decide the notions that will be employed and the issues that are essential or unimportant. All the investigators can be troubled with their own framework to consider some certain matters to be true for them, but the investigators believe other kinds of frameworks will consider them to be wrong or false (Heizer, 2011). The entire paradigm can be wrong or correct, and there is no absolute standard to decode the truth of it. Human being can just make judgments with the limitation of one’s own paradigms, which is really a serious and troublesome issue indeed. Therefore, the room for objectivity in the social sciences is very small. Sometimes the investigators can be free of subscribing to a specific framework, but the investigator must be doing their work within some certain kinds of notions and assumptions (Van, 2005).
3.3The achievement of objectivity in judgment
There are also some views of human beings contending that the selection of a kind of paradigm or a type of framework may be created or made to be objective to a great degree, and it will be likely for an investigator to obtain the judgment’s objectivity. The objectivity, by some certain standards, can be divided into the quantitative and qualitative ones (Pattern, 2007). The quantitative objectivity belongs to the number of other persons whom have duplicated the researching results and get the identical conclusions in the end of the studies. However, the quantitative objectivity, in fact, is not so important at all. All the descriptive instances could be to think of a magician who has deceived the whole group of human beings (Monckton, 1967). It is better to call it ‘consensus', instead of ‘objectivity'. Someone holds the view that the so-called objectivity is just that people believe in the things in which they believe, and other human beings also hold the same beliefs. This kind of procedure can be considered as the consensual confirmation. A consensus on the wrong or untrustworthy place, however, is not easy to be noticed at all. However, when a consensus is not useful at all, in a qualitative point of view, the objectivity can be gained much better (Lockwood, 2012). To accept the comparatively critical tradition in which an idea has been put forward to accept the scrutiny, to examine more vigorously and to challenges. If a point of view has been promoted to face the needs of the evidence and motivation, people can then have some belief that it isn’t just the viewpoints showing the whim and bias of some personal or team and has dependable warrant. The existence of a critical tradition could protect the objectivity by the scientists in the field of society, by offering the work to blur the peer review, replying to the critics, familiarizing themselves to various literatures on methodology and by attacking the beliefs of their own (Panney, 2003).
4.0The acquisition of objectivity
4.1 The conceptualizations on objectivity of various theorists
Various conceptualizations of diverse theorists have been briefly discussed in the above, which can be categorized into a spectrum resulting in a usable belief of objectivity. The feminists have employed the ends of the dichotomous interpretations of objectivity in 2 dissimilar methods. There is one kind of strong, or thorough social constructionist considering that argues for all kinds of knowledge claims, especially the scientific ones (Mansukhani, 1985). Constructivists have the belief that no insider’s views have the special privilege, with all the inside-outside limitations in knowledge to be theorized as the movements of power, instead of moving toward the so-called truth. The ideological doctrine of the reasonable and scientific means as well as the philosophical verbosity on the epistemology is just the excuse for understanding the world by practicing the sciences in an effective way (Mass, 1970). Persuasion is a synonymous word with practice, and rhetoric with science. Some efforts have been made to persuade relating social actors that the manufactures knowledge of human beings is an access to a wished kind of quite objective power (Mince, 2010). With the intention of going beyond displaying bias in science, the feminists employ the radical social constructionist to try to make an argument to leave no cracks for decreasing the problems of bias with objectivity, misuse with use, pseudo-science with science. Humanistic Marxism is the other seductive viewpoint, which attracts the objectivist vision (Pantelidis, 2012). In the 70s of 21 century, the feminist thinkers started to think on the insights of the viewpoints of the proletariat that can be transferred to interpret how the structural relation between men and women had influences on the presence of knowledge. It provided a kind of obvious method to achieve the versions of view theory (Ogards, 1972). The ‘feminist empiricism' has converged with it, which went on favoring the legitimate interpretations of objectivity, keeping doubtful of the radical semiology. This kind of feminist researchers’ spontaneous consciousness in the social sciences and the biology were attempting to interpret the dissimilarities between the research procedures and those with the so-called standard procedures in the field of them (Shalver, 2012). The matters that they considered as the issue were that of the fake science. The major viewpoint was that when the scientists could comply with the existed means and norms of the study more strictly, the androcentrism and the sexism would no longer exist in the outcomes of the scientific study. Feminist empiricists’ forms can be divided into two, which are the ‘spontaneous' and ‘philosophical' (Pratten, 2003). ‘Feminism Objectivity' has been obtained due to the fights between both forms of radical constructivism and feminist empiricism, and between the ‘successor science projects' versus ‘postmodern accounts of difference'.
4.2 The objectivity and the social liberation movement
Several feminists and others in the movement of social liberation have the belief that although there is some contradiction in terms, it would be likely to own the social situated and favorable learning. In the traditional accounts, the socially situated notion were considered as views and aimed to get the status of more knowledge. More objectivity can be gained when the original ties to the interests in history, agendas and the values (Steven, 1999). Some people also consider it probable to have simultaneously a description of thorough historical contingency for all the learning claims. With the ideas of the ‘spontaneous feminist theorists' that abundant care and energy to existing means is the reasons of the appearance of sexist and androcentric outcomes of study, and the standpoint theorists have the belief that it is only a part of the issue. The issue is due to the traditional notion of objectivity, which is not so energetic or objective at all (Ojugo, 2010). The means and the norms are not strong enough to allow the investigators systemically to recognize and clear off from the outcomes of study those social values, agendas, hobbies that have been shared by the whole scientific community. Objectivity could have the scientific means that can identify sexist and androcentric hypothesis which are the “dominant beliefs of an age” (Timberg, 1999).
4.3 The objectivity and standpoint theorists
Standpoint theorists attempt to the issue by promoting much stronger criteria for much better means which can maximize the objectivity. Most standpoint theorists have influenced the feeling of him after the accident. Although developing the capacity to be found from the peripheries and the depths have been held at a premium, the risk of the romanticizing vision of the less powerful could not be misjudged.
5.0The adoption of the open ideological study
Nowadays, the scientists in the field of society are advancing in going on the struggle alongside the subjects of them, especially the scientists working within the study programs based on the values. They hold the view that the interest-free learning and knowledge is unlikely in logical aspects, people do not feel free to use the explicit accounts for the implicit ones'. The behavior to offer the social science that is neutral in value is advancingly being given up as at best impossible, and at worst self-deception (Polgase, 1988).
6.0Conclusion
Many scientists have the belief that the notion of objectivity as the basic principle in doing researching on the nature and on the objectivity. In recent years, the objectivity has become more and more popular and more important than all the other kinds of styles with the development of economy and the technology. Some scientists have also considered objectivity as the most wonderful or the achievement in the Western cultures history. In the paper, the issues of the objectivity have been discussed briefly in the above. The meanings of objectivity can be various, which is difficult to define to some degree. The implication of ‘objectivity’ has also been introduced in detail in the thesis. The objectivity, relative objectivity and the subjectivity are not the same to a great degree, which has been explained in the paper concretely. The theories on the objectivity also vary from one to another, which are not easy to do a completely and critical research. The issues on the objectivity in society have been analyzed in the above. The results of the paper may have some positive effects on the developing of sciences in society and in other fields.
51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，想获取更多Essay代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com 为留学生提供essay辅导服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。-lc
1.0Introduction
1.1A brief introduction on the issues of ‘objectivity’
Most scientists have considered the concept of ‘objectivity’ as their fundamental principle in studying something on nature or on society. ‘Objectivity’ has become the more important than other knowing styles with the development of technology and economy. Some scientists also think of objectivity as the most wonderful success or accomplishment in the history of Western culture. However, in recent years, objectivity has been doubted in some areas, which has been accused of being used by the powerful people to reach certain goals for a long time. Although the attention on objectivity is also continuous, the focus on it has become a little less than before in the scientific feeds. The status of objectivity has been very high in both the natural and physical sciences, but some people also argue that objectivity is not as important in social science as in the past. There are many issues that have been put forward by the critics in the social sciences. Some of the issues will be discussed in the paper.
1.2The meaning of ‘objectivity'
There are many various definition and ideas on objectivity. The word ‘objectivity’ is now used by people in some confusing ways. At present, the word meaning of objectivity consists several aspects, such as the metaphysical, moral and methodological respects, which has created some issues in itself (Charles, 1969). In order to offer some discussion on the issues of setting up objectivity in the social sciences, the essay will try to describe the true meaning of objectivity and the meaning of it to the people who employ it. This explanation is very important in preventing the readers from becoming lost in the peripatetic which means the Labyrinth of fraudulent ‘chimeras', mythical, positivist-like and foundationalist. This paper will help readers to avoid the wrong interpretations by expounding the illusive terms, which will also provide an insightful analysis on the history of it, such as the origin of the usage of ‘objectivity’, the ending of it and the present status of it. After clarifying the tight relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, the paper will analyze some necessary problems in setting up objectivity owing to the rejection of the value-free studies on society-culture and the usage of the concept of Paradigms (Christos, 1995). In the essay, the critical tradition and the consensual validation will also be employed as the methods to solve the issues of objectivity. Although objectivity tends to loss the battle in epistemology and the theory of standpoint displays one of the most intense arguments against objectivity. The concise overview on the meaning of objectivity discussions will offer a common consensus on the meaning of objectivity, which shows that the discussion is open as well and may be for the future.
2.0The interpretation on the implication of ‘objectivity’
2.1The consensual definition of ‘objectivity’
The first fundamental issue of the meaning of objectivity is in obtaining a kind of consensual definition. Popper has not considered carefully on the history and the meaning of objectivity and he believes that it is not necessary for human beings to consider it. However, Datson considers that it is essential to recognize the time and the way by which this word and other things intersect. The selection of the word that is attached to the things is not arbitrary at all (David, 1989). The dominating notion in the present usage means particularly to a perspectival objectivity. The perspectival objectivity means the way in understanding, an idea or a kind of thought is much more objective when it depends on the peculiarities of the personal makeup and the status in the world or on the traits of the special kind of creature. The present usage of this word is a little confusing to some degree. It has been used as the same meaning with empirical for science, fair and for ration. There are some shifts between the interpretations on the objective truth in the scientific proclaims, the objective behaviors of researchers and the objective process which can ensure the findings. In origin, the term has intense relationship to scholastic philosophy when it is relating to the goals of thought, instead of those outside. Descartes has noted down some degrees of the objective facts, but the employment of this word at that time is not conforming to the current notions of objectivity. Kant has then used this word to refer to the technical terms that was employed in philosophy, as relating to the outside aims, but instead of the related kinds that are the premise of experience (Davis, 1981). In the year of 1817, Coleridge formed the opposition of subjectivity and objectivity, leading the term much closer to the current interpretation and employment of it.
2.2The ‘objectivity’ and ‘nature’
At present, all the meanings relating objectivity will be called nature, which is confined to the term to the material meaning and the passive sense, as including all the cases by which the existence of it is known by human beings. From another aspect, the conclusion of subjectivity may be comprehended in the name of intelligence and the self concept. With the juxtaposition of the subjectivity and the objectivity, the definition of objectivity is generally formed. This inevitable relation is full of doubts within the social ideas, especially due to the definition of the term is what it is not. With the misunderstandings and traits they obtain by the automatic oppositional relationship given onto them (Egan, 2002). This kind of oppositional relationship displays the division of the social ideas into the polarized diametric ones between the divided words. The objective aspect is proud of the terms, such as structure, macro, totality, and determinism. The subjective side consists terms such as personal, micro, spontaneity and the agency. For the subjective and objective dichotomy, the words are considered as exclusive at the same time, with one thought of social facts based on the one or other sets of terms. The dissimilarities between subjectivity and the objectivity has been intensely conceptualized by Sharrok and Grieffenhagen. The difference between them is always concluded to the problem that ‘is reality displayed in personal concepts or is the fact external to it?’ Some objectivists have used the means to adopt an external or excellent views and seems to exclude actors; individual experience. Symobolic interactions ethnomethodologists has the characteristics that are similar to the subjectivists, are not considered as the personal experience. Objectivism suggests that social facts can not be decreased to the experience of the subjects, but the subjectivists have argued that ‘The way that the social world looks like is the most legitimate topics that can be offered to the social analyst to do research’. This is the single reality, and others are the basic artificial creation of the sociologists. However, for the objectivists, the objective, external and neutral researchers are the ones who can get the reality, but the social members are limited to the subjective appearances.
2.3The dualism of objective-subjective
Many methods have been used the dualism of objective-subjective to conquer the dualism between subjectivity and objectivity, which considers that the two means as too simple. The challengers include the life-world and system sketch and the practice theory (Fitzsimmons, 2014). This kind of challengers obtained a status depicted towards the objectivism, especially by the phenomenon’s critics, which can be seen with the Bourdieu. He discusses that the subjects is equipped with a comparatively immature belief that they have not been restricted to act, but they are not careful on the conditions in society and in culture which can form the dispositions to take some action. The subjectivism has imagined the social reality as the true conditions. Bourdieu has the belief that the reality of society beyond the reach of the awareness of the subjects. The scientists on reality should not accept the na?ve standpoint to be the theoretical one (Farrington, 2012). Bourdieu has warned that one person has the right and responsibility to ensure the acceptance of the account of accounts, when one person has not raised the individual contribution to the science in the social world. The difference between Bourdieu and the perceived subjectivity of phenomenology has been emphasized too much by Bourdieu. It also continues to assign the beliefs to the necessity to an objectivist method.
3.0The views of Max Weber
3.1 The methods fail to offer objectivity to the study on social nature
Max Weber is one of the most influential and famous social scientists in the last century, criticized more strongly against objectivity. He has put forward the idea that the objectivity will end up without necessity to mourn in the near future. He has the belief that both means of the natural sciences —— Naturnwissenschaften - or the ‘spiritual sciences ' ??—— Geisteswissenschaften——provided a way that can give the objectivity to do research on the nature of the society. He has the belief that the science on society has a clear aim in theory, means, issues and the object. The aims of them should not be included in the natural science, but if the room has some older people, it is necessary to offer the products without being included in the sciences on nature. For instance, he held the view that it wasn’t the goal of the social sciences to set up a hypothetical- deductive system based on the law. Although the relations may have had an excellent heuristic value, there was not too much, if there is any problem, it may be the causal status (Girouard, 1984). He also argues that a phenomenon in social and culture has very dissimilar traits from the main matter of the sciences in nature. He also assumes that the observing languages in social-culture do not exist, which are very neutral in theory and independent in logic. The interest of the social researchers in theory has formed the collection of the phenomena in society as a social issue.
3.2 The introduction of ‘relative objectivity’
Methodenstreit is a kind of ideal modes, which has led several scientists to put forward the assumptions of them before they began to do any kind of research. Thus, the notion of the relative objectivity comes into being before long. When some people analyzing something in a subjective way, there will be intersubjectivity existing by which people can understand the means in which the reports would be biased. However, no one could be absolutely objective, and everything in the world can be interpreted in a subjective aspect (Gourvish, 1994). There is no such a thing as absolute objective. The study or analysis on culture and the social affairs is also full of various kinds of interpretations, which can lead to the subjectivity in the research. The one-sided ideas do not exist in the life of human beings. All human beings have some kinds of desires, assumptions, individual hopes, and some background theories, which can affect the viewpoints of any individual. The values of human beings can affect the issues that are chosen for the social scientific study and the way in which the general laws are employed in interpreting the specific social facts. All the knowledge of specific reality comes from a special viewpoint. Human beings’ values can also have an influence on the decision of the results or conclusions, the racemization on the facts and the evaluation on the evidence. The facts in society are decided by the means and theories which can produce the collection. In fact, the means and theories have created the facts in reality (Greasley, 2013). The personal observations, analyzing theories and the laden of values are always limited to a certain kind of paradigm, which can be the framework of something. The investigators often work with the limitation of certain paradigm as well. The paradigm can decide the notions that will be employed and the issues that are essential or unimportant. All the investigators can be troubled with their own framework to consider some certain matters to be true for them, but the investigators believe other kinds of frameworks will consider them to be wrong or false (Heizer, 2011). The entire paradigm can be wrong or correct, and there is no absolute standard to decode the truth of it. Human being can just make judgments with the limitation of one’s own paradigms, which is really a serious and troublesome issue indeed. Therefore, the room for objectivity in the social sciences is very small. Sometimes the investigators can be free of subscribing to a specific framework, but the investigator must be doing their work within some certain kinds of notions and assumptions (Van, 2005).
3.3The achievement of objectivity in judgment
There are also some views of human beings contending that the selection of a kind of paradigm or a type of framework may be created or made to be objective to a great degree, and it will be likely for an investigator to obtain the judgment’s objectivity. The objectivity, by some certain standards, can be divided into the quantitative and qualitative ones (Pattern, 2007). The quantitative objectivity belongs to the number of other persons whom have duplicated the researching results and get the identical conclusions in the end of the studies. However, the quantitative objectivity, in fact, is not so important at all. All the descriptive instances could be to think of a magician who has deceived the whole group of human beings (Monckton, 1967). It is better to call it ‘consensus', instead of ‘objectivity'. Someone holds the view that the so-called objectivity is just that people believe in the things in which they believe, and other human beings also hold the same beliefs. This kind of procedure can be considered as the consensual confirmation. A consensus on the wrong or untrustworthy place, however, is not easy to be noticed at all. However, when a consensus is not useful at all, in a qualitative point of view, the objectivity can be gained much better (Lockwood, 2012). To accept the comparatively critical tradition in which an idea has been put forward to accept the scrutiny, to examine more vigorously and to challenges. If a point of view has been promoted to face the needs of the evidence and motivation, people can then have some belief that it isn’t just the viewpoints showing the whim and bias of some personal or team and has dependable warrant. The existence of a critical tradition could protect the objectivity by the scientists in the field of society, by offering the work to blur the peer review, replying to the critics, familiarizing themselves to various literatures on methodology and by attacking the beliefs of their own (Panney, 2003).
4.0The acquisition of objectivity
4.1 The conceptualizations on objectivity of various theorists
Various conceptualizations of diverse theorists have been briefly discussed in the above, which can be categorized into a spectrum resulting in a usable belief of objectivity. The feminists have employed the ends of the dichotomous interpretations of objectivity in 2 dissimilar methods. There is one kind of strong, or thorough social constructionist considering that argues for all kinds of knowledge claims, especially the scientific ones (Mansukhani, 1985). Constructivists have the belief that no insider’s views have the special privilege, with all the inside-outside limitations in knowledge to be theorized as the movements of power, instead of moving toward the so-called truth. The ideological doctrine of the reasonable and scientific means as well as the philosophical verbosity on the epistemology is just the excuse for understanding the world by practicing the sciences in an effective way (Mass, 1970). Persuasion is a synonymous word with practice, and rhetoric with science. Some efforts have been made to persuade relating social actors that the manufactures knowledge of human beings is an access to a wished kind of quite objective power (Mince, 2010). With the intention of going beyond displaying bias in science, the feminists employ the radical social constructionist to try to make an argument to leave no cracks for decreasing the problems of bias with objectivity, misuse with use, pseudo-science with science. Humanistic Marxism is the other seductive viewpoint, which attracts the objectivist vision (Pantelidis, 2012). In the 70s of 21 century, the feminist thinkers started to think on the insights of the viewpoints of the proletariat that can be transferred to interpret how the structural relation between men and women had influences on the presence of knowledge. It provided a kind of obvious method to achieve the versions of view theory (Ogards, 1972). The ‘feminist empiricism' has converged with it, which went on favoring the legitimate interpretations of objectivity, keeping doubtful of the radical semiology. This kind of feminist researchers’ spontaneous consciousness in the social sciences and the biology were attempting to interpret the dissimilarities between the research procedures and those with the so-called standard procedures in the field of them (Shalver, 2012). The matters that they considered as the issue were that of the fake science. The major viewpoint was that when the scientists could comply with the existed means and norms of the study more strictly, the androcentrism and the sexism would no longer exist in the outcomes of the scientific study. Feminist empiricists’ forms can be divided into two, which are the ‘spontaneous' and ‘philosophical' (Pratten, 2003). ‘Feminism Objectivity' has been obtained due to the fights between both forms of radical constructivism and feminist empiricism, and between the ‘successor science projects' versus ‘postmodern accounts of difference'.
4.2 The objectivity and the social liberation movement
Several feminists and others in the movement of social liberation have the belief that although there is some contradiction in terms, it would be likely to own the social situated and favorable learning. In the traditional accounts, the socially situated notion were considered as views and aimed to get the status of more knowledge. More objectivity can be gained when the original ties to the interests in history, agendas and the values (Steven, 1999). Some people also consider it probable to have simultaneously a description of thorough historical contingency for all the learning claims. With the ideas of the ‘spontaneous feminist theorists' that abundant care and energy to existing means is the reasons of the appearance of sexist and androcentric outcomes of study, and the standpoint theorists have the belief that it is only a part of the issue. The issue is due to the traditional notion of objectivity, which is not so energetic or objective at all (Ojugo, 2010). The means and the norms are not strong enough to allow the investigators systemically to recognize and clear off from the outcomes of study those social values, agendas, hobbies that have been shared by the whole scientific community. Objectivity could have the scientific means that can identify sexist and androcentric hypothesis which are the “dominant beliefs of an age” (Timberg, 1999).
4.3 The objectivity and standpoint theorists
Standpoint theorists attempt to the issue by promoting much stronger criteria for much better means which can maximize the objectivity. Most standpoint theorists have influenced the feeling of him after the accident. Although developing the capacity to be found from the peripheries and the depths have been held at a premium, the risk of the romanticizing vision of the less powerful could not be misjudged.
5.0The adoption of the open ideological study
Nowadays, the scientists in the field of society are advancing in going on the struggle alongside the subjects of them, especially the scientists working within the study programs based on the values. They hold the view that the interest-free learning and knowledge is unlikely in logical aspects, people do not feel free to use the explicit accounts for the implicit ones'. The behavior to offer the social science that is neutral in value is advancingly being given up as at best impossible, and at worst self-deception (Polgase, 1988).
6.0Conclusion
Many scientists have the belief that the notion of objectivity as the basic principle in doing researching on the nature and on the objectivity. In recent years, the objectivity has become more and more popular and more important than all the other kinds of styles with the development of economy and the technology. Some scientists have also considered objectivity as the most wonderful or the achievement in the Western cultures history. In the paper, the issues of the objectivity have been discussed briefly in the above. The meanings of objectivity can be various, which is difficult to define to some degree. The implication of ‘objectivity’ has also been introduced in detail in the thesis. The objectivity, relative objectivity and the subjectivity are not the same to a great degree, which has been explained in the paper concretely. The theories on the objectivity also vary from one to another, which are not easy to do a completely and critical research. The issues on the objectivity in society have been analyzed in the above. The results of the paper may have some positive effects on the developing of sciences in society and in other fields.
51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，想获取更多Essay代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com 为留学生提供essay辅导服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。-lc
