Threats to objectivity in the social science research

Threats to objectivity in the social science research

Автор: Vuković M., Urošević S., & Dašić D.

Журнал: Sport Mediji i Biznis @journal-smb

Статья в выпуске: 2 vol.9, 2023 года.

Бесплатный доступ

Objectivity in scientific research have been a frequently discussed issue in the scientific community given that interpretivist scholars have resisted the crucial role of the positivist paradigm which dominates in social sciences as well. This paper seeks to critically consider the main criterion (or principle) of scientific knowledge – objectivity – from the standpoint of social science research. The conducted analysis shows that objectivity is not only the key tenet of quantitative research, but also is equally important in qualitative studies which are used in numerous disciplines. The main objective of this paper is, in order to avoid various threats to objective rese-arch, to conceptualize this leading sicentific principle that may enhance the metho-dological quality of science; for example, lack of bias, replicability, reproducibility, etc.

Еще

Science, principles of scientific research, objectivity, aspects of objectivity, procedural objectivity, verifiability

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/170203608

IDR: 170203608   |   DOI: 10.58984/smb2302143v

Список литературы Threats to objectivity in the social science research

  • Anvari, F., & Lakens, D. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3(3), 266-286.
  • Armstrong, J. S. (1979). Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Science, 25, 423-428.
  • Armstrong, J. S. (1982). Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula. Behavioral and Brain Science, 5, 197-199.
  • Armstrong, J. S. (1983). The importance of objectivity and falsification in Management Science. Journal of Management, 9(3), 213-216.
  • Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., & Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108-119.
  • Bendix, R. (1960). Max Weber: An intellectual portrait. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc.
  • Betz, G. (2013). In defense of the value free ideal. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207-220.
  • Bešić, M. (2019). Metodologija društvenih nauka. Belgrade: Akademska knjiga.
  • Bishop, D. V. M. (2019). Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility. Nature, 568(7753), 435.
  • Boal, K. B., & Willis, R. E. (1983). A note on the Armstrong/Mitroff debate. Journal of Management, 9(2), 203-216.
  • Brdar, M. (2005). Uzaludan poziv; sociologija znanja između ideologije i samorefleksije: slučaj Karla Manhajma i prosvetiteljstva. Belgrade: Stylos.
  • Brown, J. R. (2001). Why rules in science?: An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge: Harvard
  • University Press.
  • Cotton, J. L. (1982). Objective versus advocacy models of scientific enterprise: A comment on the Mitroff myth. Academy of Management Review, 7, 133-135.
  • Dastan, L. J., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Dašić D., Kostadinović G., & Stanković M. (2023) Еthical aspects of science and scientific knowledge. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 11(2), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2023-11-2-343-350/
  • Dašić, D. (2023а) Application of delphi method in sports. Sport, mediji i biznis-Vol. 9, no 1, 59-71. https://doi.org/10.58984/smb2301059d
  • Dašić D., (2023b) Nauka i metod - metodologija naučnoistraživačkog rada u sportu. Službeni glasnik, Beograd.
  • Dienlin et al. (2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71, 1-26.
  • Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Đurić, M. (1987). Sociologija Maksa Vebera. Zagreb: Naprijed.
  • Fajgelj, S. (2010). Metode istraživanja ponašanja. Belgrade: Center for Applied Psychology.
  • Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168.
  • Harris, R. F. (2017). Rigor mortis: how sloppy science creates worthless cures, crushes hope, and wastes billions. New York: Basic Books.
  • Humpreys, L., Lewis, N. A. Jr., Sender, K., & Stevenson Won, A. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication, 71, 855-874.
  • Ilić, V. (2012). Drugi aleksandrinski tekst o analizi sadržaja. Sociologija, 54(1), 481-500.
  • Ilić, V. (2013). Različita shvatanja posmatranja u sociologiji i antropologiji. Sociologija, 55(4), 519-540.
  • Ilić, V. (2014). Objektivnost, sistematičnost i pouzdanost u primeni metoda posmatranja u društvenim naukama , Sociologija, 56(1), 61-80.
  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532.
  • Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Manić, Ž. (2017). Analiza sadržaja u sociologiji. Belgrade: Čigoja štampa.
  • Mascolo, M. F. (2016). Beyond objectivity and subjectivity: The intersubjective foundations of Psychological Science. Integr. Psych. Behav., 50, 543-554.
  • Milas, G. (2009). Istraživačke metode u psihologiji i drugim društvenim znanostima. Zagreb: Naklada Slap.
  • Milić. V. (1965). Sociološki metod. Belgrade: Nolit.
  • Milosavljević, M. (2013). Socijalna istraživanja. Belgrade: Official Gazette.
  • Milosavljević, S., i Radosavljević, I. (2006). Osnovi metodologije političkih nauka. Belgrade: Official Gazette.
  • Nejgel, E. (1974). Struktura nauke: Problemi logike naučnog saznanja .Belgrade: Nolit.
  • Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s Renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 1-24.
  • Nikolić, Z. (2010). Metodologija naučno-istraživačkog rada. Novi Sad: University Business Academy in Novi Sad.
  • Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Epskamp, S., and Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985-2013). Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1205-1226.
  • Pejanović, R. (2017). Ogledi iz metodologije društveno-ekonomskih nauka. Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga.
  • Peters, D. P., &Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-195.
  • Piršl, D. (2016). Sports and media: Complementary or bised? Facta Universitatis Series: Physical Education and Sport, 14(3), 473-481.
  • Reiss, J., & Sprenger, J. (2017). Scientific objectivity. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  • Simić, D. (2002). Metodologija nauka i tehnološki razvoj . Kragujevac: dspmecatronic, Kragujevac.
  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.
  • Šešić, B. (1982). Osnovi metodologije društvenih nauka. Belgrade: Naučna knjiga.
  • Škorić, M. (2010). Sociologija nauke: Mertonovski i konstruktivistički programi . Sremski Karlovci/Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića.
  • Šušnjić, Đ. (1973). Kritika sociološke metode .Niš: Gradina.
  • Tamminen, K. A., & Poucher, Z. A. (2017). Open science in sport and exercise psychology: Review of current approaches and consideration for qualitative inquiry. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36(May), 17-28.
  • Turner, J. (2009). Sociology. Novi Sad/Belgrade: Mediterran Publishing/ Centre for Democracy.
  • Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80-96.
  • van Dongen, N., & Sikorski, M. (2021). Objectivity for the research worker. Journal of Philosophy of Science, 11(93), 1-25.
  • Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M.A.L.M. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-12.
  • Wright, J. (2018). Rescuing objectivity: A contextualist proposal. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(4), 385-40.
Еще
Статья научная
QR-код для установки приложения SciUp Наведите камеру и скачайте бесплатное приложение SciUp