Abstract
With research areas in the social sciences expanding, and research increasingly becoming measured against its impactable outcomes, this book steps outside the wheel and provides a contemporary examination into an old question: How can social scientists come to ‘know’ the social world? For me, this book certainly makes a significant contribution to that question.
The crux of the book is located within Chapters 3, 4 and 5, where each author takes turn to outline their approach for gaining knowledge about the social world. John Scott, leaning on the work of Karl Manheim, argues that a ‘synthesising of perspectives’ allows for a fuller picture of the social world even though a complete view may be unattainable. Malcolm Williams’ argument outlines a Realist approach by recognizing objectivity as a value, but a value that can be used within the processes of investigation. Williams presents a convincing account of how objectivity may never ‘uncover’ the whole truth about the social world, but understanding it as a ‘situated value’ may help in gaining true knowledge that supports or disproves theory. Gayle Letherby’s argument, by contrast, grapples with the inevitability of subjectivity in research in considerable depth. Whilst Letherby certainly does not ignore objectivity, she carefully outlines how critical reflexivity of the researcher, coupled with auto/biography creates a ‘theorisation of the subjective’, which, for her, is the closest we can get to objectivity.
Throughout the book, I particularly enjoyed how each author, in their own way, rejected objectivity as a concept restricted to solely research methods or methodologies. Whilst each of the authors’ view on objectivity and subjectivity differs (and therefore what knowledge can be claimed from empirical research), they nevertheless share a commonality in their view that all research starts within subjectivity and values. I felt that throughout the book though, each of the authors started from this position, but showed particular strength in their ability to incorporate their ideas into epistemological approaches that strive for knowledge that is inaccessible from a purely subjective position. For example, Gayle Letherby takes a subjective position, but argues that subjectivity has become unfairly ‘demonised’. However, instead of ‘giving into’ subjectivity, Letherby skilfully outlines how an epistemological position based on a theorization of subjectivity enhances the knowledge construction process. Similarly though, at the end of the book, I did find myself agreeing with Malcolm Williams and his idea that just because objectivity does not lead us to complete ‘objective’ knowledge, we certainly should not abandon the concept.
There is one key aspect aside from the subject matter of the book that I want to discuss. The writing style and presentation of this book is original and creative. Many texts in the philosophy of the social science field are, in my view, often written in a style that makes the subject matter inaccessible and disengaging to students and new researchers. The presentation and style of this book, however, is not only accessible to students and new researchers, but keeps the reader engaged throughout. This is achieved, in my opinion, in two ways. Firstly, the authors have clearly thought about engaging the reader in each chapter. Each chapter begins with the primary author’s ‘argument’ (i.e., ‘Gayle’s argument’) and concludes with some responses from the other authors who offer support or critique to the points raised throughout the chapter. Secondly, the authors’ choice to ‘converse’ with each other by first name at the end of each chapter, with a dedicated ‘conversation’ chapter at the end of the book, worked extremely well. Although this seems a small matter in presentation style, the reward was enormous because, for me, it established a real engagement and deeper insight into the authors’ arguments and points. Importantly though, this style of writing made me, the reader, feel part of the conversation throughout the book and I am sure that this will appeal to others new to this area.
Of course, some people who read this book might argue that the authors obsess over the issues this book presents (Gayle Letherby actually anticipates this in her conversational reply in Chapter 7). Whilst there is no doubt an ‘obsession’ with objectivity and subjectivity throughout the book, the obsession, for me at least, is an entirely healthy and important one. If, as social scientists, we want to strive to gain the most comprehensive understanding of the social world we possibly can, the ideas that this book presents certainly provide an innovative insight into rethinking objectivity and subjectivity in social research. The book is therefore an absolute must read for anyone who wishes to reflect on how knowledge gained through empirical research is discovered, constructed and presented. In the spirit of the book then, I believe Gayle, John and Malcolm have provided a thought-provoking and stimulating read that I’m sure will facilitate further contributions to an area that is integral to the social sciences.