More Objective Research By Putting Forth Subjectivity - How Realistic?

Is it possible to conduct research in social sciences without succumbing to a certain amount of assumptions regarding neutrality or fake universalization of elements within different categories? How does one choose what part of the identity/context of the subject might be relevant for one’s study? For example, the category “women” - how can this one word manage to capture the various complexities of different individuals who may choose (or even be forced to) identify as women? Is this a problem of the language or a problem of methodologies of research or both? Who is even assigning this label of ‘women’ to the research subjects while conducting the research? Who has the authority to assign this label in the first place? 

In her essay, ‘Is there a feminist method?’, Sandra Harding aims to challenge the traditional accounts which paint a distorted picture of the reality of ‘women’ in the social world. Harding argues against a distinctive feminist method of research and rather brings out the interrelatedness and interlinkedness of epistemology, methodology, and research method to help understand the distinctiveness of feminist analyses. She points out that understanding this interlinkedness can help conduct more ‘objective’ research by adding the elements of ‘subjectivity’ to the research. 

Locating the Researcher in the Critical Same Plane

Harding raises a crucial point about how most of the traditional research has been ‘studying down’, that is, where the research has usually been conducted by ones already in a position of privilege and power. 

According to Harding, what’s distinctive about feminist analyses is that they try to ‘study up’ instead of ‘study down’. They insist that the inquirer places themselves in the same critical plane as the overt subject matter. That is, the class, gender, culture, race, beliefs, and other assumptions must be already clearly presented and placed in the frame of research they intend to carry out. This way the researcher appears to us as not some invisible, god-like, anonymous voice of authority/power/knowledge, but as a real, historical individual with their own set of background experiences and interests. Harding argues that introducing this ‘subjective’ element into the analysis in fact increases the objectivity of the research by laying out the possible biases and shortcomings of a certain perspective. This, in turn, decreases objectivism which would otherwise make it seem like some ‘value neutral, free-from-error’ account, hiding the cultural practices and individual beliefs of the researcher from the audience. 

But is it even possible to clearly present one’s labels, categories, beliefs, etc. while conducting the research? To what extent? Would that help reduce the internalized hierarchical biases and structures while answering/asking the questions? How realistic is it to expect to not take an individual or ‘women’ as a pre-given category? 

References:

1. Harding, Sandra, “Is there a feminist method?”, Feminism and Methodology Anthology, 1987.

2. Lury, Celia: "The Rights and Wrongs of Culture: Issues of Theory and Methodology", Feminist Cultural Theory: Process and Production, 1995.