Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T23:49:29.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Values and Data Collection in Social Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Julie Zahle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I offer a partial analysis of the role of values in qualitative data collection in social research. The partial analysis shows that nonepistemic values have both required and permissible roles to play during this phase of research. By appeal to the analysis, I reject the ideal of value-free science as applied to qualitative data collection, and I demonstrate why two alternative ideals should likewise be dismissed as standards for values in qualitative data collection. Also, I briefly discuss the extent to which the partial analysis carries over to quantitative data collection in social research.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 144 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†.

The research for this article was funded by the University of Copenhagen’s Excellence Programme for Interdisciplinary Research. I would like to thank Klemens Kappel, Manuela Fernández Pinto, Kristina Rolin, and Michael Root for their helpful comments and criticisms. Also, I have presented the paper as part of the ToPHHS Lectures on Science and the Value-Free Ideal, Central European University (2016); at the Philosophy of Science (PoS) Seminar, Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, University of Helsinki (2016); at the Institute of Philosophy, Leibniz Universität Hannover (2016); and at the PSA Conference in Atlanta (2016). I have benefited from the suggestions made by the audiences on these occasions.

References

Agar, Michael H. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. “Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology.” Philosophical Topics 23 (2): 27–58..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth 2004. “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.” Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Carol A. 1996. A Guide to Field Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Google Scholar
Biddle, Justin. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew J. 2012. “The Source and Status of Values for Socially Responsible Science.” Philosophical Studies 163:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carrier, Martin, Howard, Don, and Kourany, Janet, eds. 2008. The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Charlotte A. 1999. Reflexive Ethnography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeWalt, Kathleen M., and DeWalt, Billie R.. 2002. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Lanham, MD: Altamira.Google Scholar
Diekmann, Sven, and Peterson, Martin. 2013. “The Role of Non-epistemic Values in Engineering Models.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19:207–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67:559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2011. “Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 78:303–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2013. “Douglas on Values: From Indirect Roles to Multiple Goals.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What Is Qualitative Research? London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn, and Atkinson, Paul. 2003. Ethnography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn, and Traianou, Anna. 2012. Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hicks, Daniel J. 2014. “A New Direction for Science and Values.” Synthese 191:3271–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2005. “Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 72:1001–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, Danny L. 1989. Participant Observation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison, eds. 2007. Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1996. “Cognitive and Non-cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.” In Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 39–58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter, and Douglas, Heather. 1999. “Cognitive and Social Values.” Science and Education 8:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter, and Wolters, Gereon, eds. 2004. Science, Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rolin, Kristina. 2012. “A Feminist Approach to Values in Science.” Perspectives on Science 20 (3): 320–30..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, Kristina 2015. “Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration.” Philosophy of Science 82:157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1992. “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-epistemic Distinction Useful?” In Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. David Hull, Mickey Forbes, and Kathleen Okruhlik, 13–22. East Lancing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Root, Michael. 1993. Philosophy of Social Science: The Methods, Ideals, and Politics of Social Inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spradley, James P. 1980. Participant Observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 77:14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel 2015. Philosophy and the Precautionary Principle: Science, Evidence, and Environmental Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar