Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Mariana Lepecki
IB TOK II--Hunt

Objectivity and Subjectivity: the Struggle

One of the first things that struck me when selecting this particular question was my own knowledge issue regarding the word “objectively.” As someone who is fond of natural sciences, I have believed that “objectivity” was synonymous to “accuracy,” for the former can help increase the effectiveness of an experiment. As psychologist Elaine Vauguan stated: “the experimental method is one of the most powerful tools for scientists to identify what are the causes of particular outcomes and effects” (“Psychology: The Human Experience”). But can an objective experimental method really produce valid and accurate results in the human sciences?

According to Oxford dictionary, objectivity is defined as “not being influenced by personal feelings” when considering facts. But by numbing our emotions, are we not also numbing an entire way of knowing? Following the premise that humans are emotional by nature, then wouldn’t it be more logical for the species to be studied subjectively?

            It may seem logical, but in practice subjective research and its qualitative data have been regarded by some not to be as valid as objective studies and their quantitative results. This is especially the case when it comes to methods such as Participant Observation, for “events are interpreted through the single observer's eyes […] Clearly one's own views can come in to play” (“Observation: Participant Observation”).

I experienced this conflict with researcher bias during the “alien” activity, for I had a hard time detaching from my own perception and schema. Because of this, I constantly found myself describing scenarios in my journal using particular human jargon, such as “laptop,” that would have been unknown to a foreigner. Nevertheless, although I was not successful in repressing my schema while conducting this type of research, I can’t simply discard the merits of subjective observation, since my obvious lack of experience with this methodology also affected my ability to take on a neutral observant role.

For instance, renowned Anthropologist Wade Davis was very successful in his use of Participant Observation when studying the people of Chichero in Peru. When discussing the traditional run through the mountain region of the area that he participated in, he concluded: “you go into the mountain as an individual, but through exhaustion, through sacrifice, you emerge as a community that has once again reaffirmed its sense of place in the planet” (Davis). Here, Davis reveals his perspective on the struggle and fulfillment that takes place during this traditional event, an insight and understanding which may not have been obtained had he simply observed the group from a distance.

            However, though these emotions may have been greatly insightful for Davis’ research, this way of knowing can sometimes hinder the validity of research, especially when it comes to emotional hijacking. Take Stanford’s famous Zimbardo prison experiment, for example. As the psychologist himself stated, he became so caught up in his role as the prison warden that he was angered when a college asked him about the variables of his study: “To my surprise, I got really angry at him (…) It wasn’t until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point” (Zimbardo). Thus, this extremely subjective involvement of the researcher with his own study jeopardized his ability to follow his experimental design.

            But too much objectivity also has its downsides. For instance, when analyzing the Stanley Milgram experiment objectively, one might agree that his experimental methodology seems reasonable. But the manner in which the test subjects are treated is alarming. When noticing that the applied shocks were seemingly unbearable to the disguised actor, some volunteers asked to stop the experiment. However, they were forced to continue against their own will (“Obedience to Authority”). Therefore, the level of objectivity in this case, though not negatively impacting the results of the study per se, led to an unethical treatment of test subjects; one that could have perhaps been avoided had the researchers analyzed the design of study with a more subjective eye.

            In conclusion, returning back to the first part of the question, as it is evidenced by Participant Observation, we don’t solely study humans objectively. Nevertheless, the level of objectivity and subjectivity at hand may vary depending on the subject matter being discussed, as cultural anthropology, for example, may not require as much experimental research in comparison to areas in psychology.

            But what about the second part of the question? Should we study humans objectively? Not necessarily. Taking into consideration the insight that subjective observation can provide, as seen with Davis’ work, purely objective research only provides a more quantitative view of human behavior. Moreover it can also clash with ethical implications. Of course this doesn’t mean that human studies should be completely subjective, for emotion and personal schema can also hinder the accuracy of results. Therefore, human study requires a flexible balance between these two methodologies, for we will never be able to obtain a holistic understanding of our species if one of these sides is ignored.

Works Cited:

Davis, Wade. "The Worldwide Web of Belief and Ritual." TED: Ideas worth

Spreading. Web. Feb 2008

"Obedience to Authority The Experiments by Stanley Milgram." Stanley

Milgram Obedience Experiments Authority Study 1974 Psychology. Web. 23 Aug. 2013

"Objectivity." Oxford Dictionary (British & World English). Web. 23

Aug. 2013.

"Observation: Participant Observation." UC Davies Psychology. Web.

23 Aug. 2013.

"Psychology - The Human Experience - Lesson 02 - Research Methods in

Psychology."YouTube. YouTube, 24 Jan. 2013. Web.

Zimbardo, Phil. "Stanford Prison Experiment." A Simulation Study of the

Psychology of Imprisonment. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.

.