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.
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.
[1] https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil...