Neutrality in research- it’s often taken by readers as a given, known by authors to be an ideal and not a reality, but should neutrality even be a goal at all?
During the roundtable discussion, Tracey McIntosh’s comments on neutrality in research really struck me, as she contended that not only is it implausible for authors to have the ability to channel complete objectivity when carrying out the process of research, but that they should not even seek to pursue a goal of neutrality from the outset. Tracey seemed to suggest that one comes into a research undertaking ‘as they are’- complete with their own opinions, experiences, and backstory- and that instead of attempting to push these aside in order to assume some unattainable ‘veil of ignorance’, these should almost work to shape the focus and tone of the research.
Such a passionate dismissal of the idea of aiming for neutrality is something rather foreign to me as a Law student, with it having been drummed into me that what you subjectively believe to be right or true is irrelevant- what is right and true in any given circumstance is what the law and facts in front of you tell you is right and true. With this in mind I, oh so ironically, attempted first to approach Tracey’s contention from an open-minded and ‘neutral’ standpoint, in order to ascertain why this view was held, and what merit it may possess. I believe that Tracey’s claim is born from a strong foundation, as the inherent biases we each possess are indisputable, and it cannot be overlooked that in many instances authors will select their field of research based on what they already have a fascination in, and thus too an inkling as to what they already believe. It is also true that a researcher’s background and personal identity can heighten the depth and meaning of their work as a result of their particular proximity to the topic in question- something which Daniel commented on during the panel discussion in respect of his own work. However, I would argue that the very fact that these types of personal relations to one’s research are largely unavoidable is the reason why we should at least attempt to adopt the most neutral lens possible. Researchers are clearly naturally situated at a starting point which is already coloured by a plethora of considerations and predispositions. Thus, actively forgoing any attempt at neutrality would likely prevent us from being able to discover and conceive of alternatives which exist outside of our pre-existing scope of vision.
Research is a distinct ‘genre’ in that it is intended to explain and illuminate, and I believe that it is important for it to serve this same purpose in relation to both the reader, and the researcher themselves. If a piece were merely a statement of what the author already opined, with evidence then ‘researched’ to support this view, this would not be ‘research’ in an authentic sense. As I suppose a Law student would, I like to analogise this important standpoint in research to the role of a judge. None possess the expectation that judges themselves have no opinions, no political leanings, and no moral sentiments- they are, too, people beneath the wig and gown. However, there is indeed an expectation- a necessity- that they cast these aside as best they can when in their professional capacity, in order to consider each case with the clearest of eyes, and according only to the law, as opposed to any subjective compass. While the stakes in research tasks are somewhat lower, I am of the view that the same principle should apply- at least to an extent-, as I struggle to accept that something void of even an attempt at neutrality can rightly be classified as ‘research’.
