Objectivity and the Scientific Method

February, 26th 2025 – Paper 2 Psychology in Context | Research Methods

• Back to Paper 2 – Research Methods
  

Science is about ‘knowing’ rather than just ‘believing’.

Science is a means of finding out about our world, i.e. gaining knowledge. However, most importantly, it aims to uncover facts that can be relied upon. However, not all knowledge is scientific, for example, I know that Jane Austin wrote Pride and Prejudice, this is something that I know through experiencing the world around me, this knowledge however is not based on scientific fact. There is a clear distinction between knowledge and scientific knowledge. Knowledge is information, skills and understanding obtained through our life/world experiences or education, while science is a knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.

The scientific approach emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence. This means that evidence is gained through objective observation, experimentation and measurement of behaviour. Objectivity is the key element. It means that events are not distorted by emotions and prejudices and are recorded as they actually happen.

If evidence is OBJECTIVE this means that it has been obtained without reference to the observer. In other words, objectivity occurs when the researcher has been entirely unbiased in conducting their research so that the data collected is independent of the researcher and has not been affected by their own individual perspectives or opinions. To increase objectivity in their research psychologists make sure that as far as possible, there is nothing in their research that is open to interpretation or bias. For example, the use standardised instructions, fully operationalised variable and physical measures such as reaction times that cannot be affected by the researcher’s own viewpoint. These types of measures ensure the researcher is not affecting the outcome of the study.

Evidence is SUBJECTIVE when it has been obtained with some sort of reference to the observer, In other words, subjectivity occurs when the researcher has been biased in conducting their researcher so the data collected is not independent of the researcher. For example, a researcher conducting an interview might be affected by the emotions of the participant they are interviewing. If this affects (biases) their subsequent choice of questions of their interpretation of the participants’ responses then they are being subjective. Equally, if a researcher gathers their data and then only focuses on the results that support their theory and ignore the other results that may not be in line with their theory, this too is a form of subjectivity and bias.

Another fundamental aspect of any scientific research is that researchers working in a particular field can check each other’s findings. Confidence in research findings is increased when investigations are replicated (repeated) in exactly the same way and the results are consistent (i.e. similar). If the investigation produces the same results when replicated over and over again in the same way, it is likely that it is reliable and this is important in science. This is because replication helps guard against scientific fraud and enables psychologists to check whether results were just a one-off (e.g. solely down to that particular sample used) or not. Which of the following research methods are easiest to replicate? Have a look at the information below for a summary of the research methods in terms of how easy or difficult they are to replicate (click on the research methods box to reveal the summary).

Falsification part of the verification (validation process) is the idea of falsifiability, where a scientific theory or hypothesis must be empirically tested to see if it is false. Replication is the accepted way of determining this. Some psychologists (e.g. Freud and the ID, EGO and Superego) can be criticised for developing theories that cannot be empirically tested. Popper 1935) proposed that no matter how many positive validations of a scientific theory, it doesn’t prove it as undeniably true. However, one example of falsification is enough to render a theory untrue. Popper sees falsifiability as being the determining line between what is and isn’t scientific.

A good theory is one that can be empirically tested. Unless you can test a theory, there is no means of knowing if it is a good theory or poor theory or if it needs modification. A good theory should therefore produce a number of testable hypotheses, thus allowing for falsification. Popper proposed two scientific processes which allow psychologists to test theories and check for falsifiability.

Traditionally scientists have gathered data using empirical methods and then used the two complimentary processes of induction or deduction to develop theories. The scientific process starts with observations of phenomena in the world.

The inductive model leads scientists to develop hypotheses first (before constructing a theory). Hypotheses are then tested possibly leading to new questions and new hypotheses. Eventually such data can be used to construct a theory.

The deductive model places theory construction at the beginning after making observations.

A paradigm is a general theory or law that is accepted by the majority of scientists in a particular field of study (e.g. Psychology). Paradigms are often not fixed and in changing. With time, evidence will accumulate that suggests that a paradigm is less adequate than it was. Eventually, enough evidence will accumulate so that the current paradigm is replaced by another paradigm.