Ignoring the thread and dealing with the link within...
> Authentic participatory methods require a shift in power to the individuals and groups who have the most at stake yet the least-heard voice. Doing so is ethical and more effective, as people without institutional power hold essential knowledge that more “objective” stakeholders do not possess.
This seems to me like a good blueprint for activism but anathema to the idea of 'research'. Someone's degree of victimization does not determine the truth value of their statements.
> For example, in a participatory project on policing, the people who are policed—not the police—are the experts to include.
How does shutting out the voices of those determined to possess power (itself a subjective judgment...) help develop an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of any phenomenon?
The paper ostensibly comes out against 'objectivity' and 'rigor' but really seems to rewrite their definitions such that objectivity = the "essential-ness" of your subjects' knowledge, and rigor = how systematically you follow the participatory method rather than the scientific method.
Wow that twitter thread summary is not what the Urban article is about. Urban's piece is around the concept that research needs to be contextualized appropriately and if it is social research should probably include the communities being researched.
No, documents are not "about" what one feels like they're about, or what it would be politically convenient for them to be about. Documents are "about" the ideas they communicate via the plain words they contain.
The article literally says that objectivity and rigor are "harmful research practices". Those claims are highlighted in bold and header font, and they are the centerpiece of the document. Anyone can open up the document and see this.
From my brief readings in this kind of thing it seems like the researchers in this field have made the batshit move to come up with their own definitions of rigor and objectivity that's not the same as the one used in the natural sciences.
But, as far as I can tell, they're not advocating some sort of mystic rejection of reality (though they seem entirely indifferent to that kind of misinterpretation from their lousy jargon)
To my eye the grandparent is right and your reading is the uncharitable one. Obviously I think there is some "clickbait" going on in the title, which you can take issue with, but the article is pretty clear:
On objectivity: "Objectivity allows researchers...to define themselves as experts without learning from people with lived experience. Objectivity also gives researchers grounds to claim they have no motives or biases in their work. ... At best, objectivity curbs how impactful research can be, and, at worst, it irrevocably harms a community.
On rigor: "...researchers often define rigor as following an established research protocol meticulously instead of ensuring data are contextualized and grounded in community experience. Rigor in this sense does not guarantee trustworthiness or accuracy."
Reading charitably does not mean ignoring the plain words in the text.
To reiterate, the article declares objectivity and rigor to be "harmful research practices" without qualification. It then goes on to define these terms in a narrow, unreasonable way in the passages you quote, or to make unsubstantiated claims unsupported by any reasonable definition. (For example, contra the article, objectivity does not "enable" researchers to claim that they are unbiased if they are in fact enacting bias. If I claim that stealing is legal, the concept of legality is not to blame for my erroneous claim.) These unsubstantiated definitions and claims are used to justify the original declaration that objectivity and rigor are harmful research practices.
The text could be rewritten to make its underlying valid points in a less ridiculous way, but the text as written is still ridiculous. And it's part of a much larger academic body of work in which positive values like objectivity and rigor are redefined in a narrow, negative way so that they can be disparaged as racist.
The arch example of redefining objectivity in order to disparage it as racist is Tema Okun's critique of "white supremacy culture" [1]. This critique has countless descendants in academia, and now, in organizational diversity trainings across the country.
This article is not just awkwardly written. It's reinforcing the Okun concept of anti-racism. And within that concept is a relentless, Orwellian broadside against the language we use to articulate traditional intellectual and moral values. It has never been nuanced, and it is many years past the point of deserving charitable reading.
I think I still largely disagree with what you wrote. I do agree that the thesis could be more clearly written to say that objectivity and rigor are not /purely/ harmful.
Their definitions of objectivity and rigor are quite similar to ones you'd find in a dictionary.
In the intro, the author writes "However, long-standing values and practices rooted in racism, ableism, and classism are ingrained in the fabric of research, leaving many researchers unaware of the harm they are causing." To me, this statement does not say "rigor and objectivity are only harmful," it says "rigor and objectivity have a harmful component."
Of course, the body of the article is mostly evidence to support the thesis. Since the thesis does not claim that objectivity and rigor are purely harmful, there's no need to spend any ink on the benefits of those things.
In the conclusion, it is reiterated that "research can be a tool for positive change, but it can also cause harm." Yes, the claims are bold (especially out of context!), but this is a reasonable treatment of the topic and your criticism is coming at it a bit sideways.
My takeaway from the article is the assertion that because of current academic practices which value distance between researchers and subjects, research procedures, and funding-inspired biases, research is impaired by both a lack of personal insights as well as existing societal structures which often embody systemic racism. It probably could've been less edgy in making the point (the current title is a literal summary of what the author of the analysis wrote), but considering how many others tried and failed to make the same point in research (I'll find citations for this), I don't blame anyone for trying new messaging.
I'm not really equipped to say whether I agree with where the piece lands (I probably do), but I did find the author's use of "rigorous" in her bio both amusing and interesting; I'm wondering if it's a hidden critique of her own org. First highlighted in this tweet: https://twitter.com/bnprogressive41/status/14404720434434785...
---
TL;DR: it's trying to shine light on research deficiencies and prejudices differently than others have done so in the past.
I can't believe that article "Equitable Research Requires Questioning the Status Quo" is not "trolling" attempt. This can't be written in a sincere and serious fashion.
I was curious to read definition of ableism so clicked link - got more on racism
“Mainstream scientists, geneticists and medical researchers still invoke race and use these categories in their work, even though we have been told for 70 years that they have no biological meaning, that they have only social meaning,” Saini says.
These are a bit bad. What should be used is say HLA group or whatever genomic and epigenetic or phenotypic variant that is relevant.
Oh wait, according to this Black American is a description of a phenotype. (Not the most detailed one, but useful.) "Black" alone is worthless unless we're talking about skin tone.
Submitter's note: I submitted this tweet rather than the original article because it highlights an aspect of the piece that I think should be highlighted, and I would not have been able to highlight that aspect if I had submitted the original article.
The Urban Institute article linked in the tweet is definitely worth reading on its own and makes valid points, but I think we need to reflect on whether it is a good idea to redefine objectivity and rigor in narrow ways that make them "harmful research practices".
> Authentic participatory methods require a shift in power to the individuals and groups who have the most at stake yet the least-heard voice. Doing so is ethical and more effective, as people without institutional power hold essential knowledge that more “objective” stakeholders do not possess.
This seems to me like a good blueprint for activism but anathema to the idea of 'research'. Someone's degree of victimization does not determine the truth value of their statements.
> For example, in a participatory project on policing, the people who are policed—not the police—are the experts to include.
How does shutting out the voices of those determined to possess power (itself a subjective judgment...) help develop an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of any phenomenon?
The paper ostensibly comes out against 'objectivity' and 'rigor' but really seems to rewrite their definitions such that objectivity = the "essential-ness" of your subjects' knowledge, and rigor = how systematically you follow the participatory method rather than the scientific method.