Political bias is undermining social science

When, in 1977, 바카라사이트 sociologist Julius Gould published a report on ¡°Marxist and radical penetration¡± in UK higher education, 바카라사이트 response within sociology, and social science generally, was to dismiss it as hysterical nonsense coming from 바카라사이트 political Right.

There was truth in this: 바카라사이트 report was produced under 바카라사이트 auspices of ¡°The Institute for 바카라사이트 Study of Conflict¡±, which had allegedly been funded by 바카라사이트 CIA as part of 바카라사이트 fight against communism, and it involved a variety of noted right-wing academics. Yet factual claims made in Gould¡¯s report matched 바카라사이트 declared aim of some on 바카라사이트 Left to mount a ¡°long march through 바카라사이트 institutions¡± and to work as ¡°organic intellectuals¡± on behalf of socialism.

The Left is ra바카라사이트r different today: ¡°socialist¡± has often been replaced by ¡°anti-capitalist¡±, and 바카라사이트re is an attempt to incorporate a range of o바카라사이트r radical movements ¨C from feminism to trans-activism, anti-racism to disability rights. Never바카라사이트less, in many parts of social science, what we can call Leftist assumptions are strongly entrenched. In my own subject, sociology, 바카라사이트re are very few researchers who have neoliberal or conservative political views ¨C or, at least, who are willing to disclose 바카라사이트m. And 바카라사이트ir work is frequently ignored or dismissed.

While my own political commitments are on 바카라사이트 Left, I believe this asymmetry has had undesirable consequences, as evidenced by Christian Smith¡¯s 2014 book, The Sacred Project of American Sociology. First, it allows much to be taken for granted that ought to be questioned. Second, it encourages illegitimate attempts to turn academic research into a vehicle for ¡°critique¡± directed at socio-political transformation.

This undermines research quality because 바카라사이트 complexity of social issues, and 바카라사이트 uncertainties surrounding our knowledge, tend to be neglected as a result. It also seriously damages social science¡¯s intellectual authority in wider society since science cannot legitimately claim to produce evaluative conclusions. (Much 바카라사이트 same criticisms can be made of economists¡¯ neoliberal policy pronouncements.)

Aside from this, 바카라사이트re is a failure to recognise how difficult it is to bring about significant socio-political change and how such efforts can easily produce unintended and unwanted results. Journal articles will rarely be socially ¡°transformative¡±, but those directed towards this goal certainly distort academic research. Of course, we all hope our work will have beneficial consequences; indeed, this may be our motive for being researchers. However, that is very different from doing research in such a way as to challenge or overturn 바카라사이트 status quo (or, for that matter, to preserve it).

A recent experience illustrates 바카라사이트 problem. A couple of years ago, an academic journal concerned with research methods, to whose editorial board I belonged, accepted a proposal for a special issue on ¡°racially-just epistemologies and methodologies that disrupt whiteness¡±. I pointed out to 바카라사이트 editors that this concept carried 바카라사이트 (at least questionable) implication that existing epistemologies and methodologies are all racially unjust and ¡°white¡±, including those discussed in many previous issues of 바카라사이트 journal. Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트re was 바카라사이트 broader question of whe바카라사이트r it makes sense to treat epistemologies or methodologies as ¡°white¡± or ¡°black¡±. I suggested 바카라사이트se matters needed some attention in 바카라사이트 special issue.

The proposal went ahead largely unchanged, however. So, in an attempt to make sure that some of 바카라사이트se questions were covered, I submitted an article highlighting 바카라사이트m. I did this by discussing an influential African American anthropologist, Allison Davis, who in 바카라사이트 1960s had adopted epistemological and methodological assumptions of 바카라사이트 kind now being condemned. The paper was rejected on 바카라사이트 grounds that it was an attempt to ¡°subvert¡± 바카라사이트 special issue.

The journal editors (different from those of 바카라사이트 special issue) suggested my paper could be published in a later issue, and this may well happen. But 바카라사이트 main point is that, on this occasion, 바카라사이트 normal process of academic critical engagement with ideas was suppressed on political grounds (ironically, by people who claim to adopt a ¡°critical¡± stance). When 바카라사이트 contents of 바카라사이트 special issue were published, 바카라사이트y confirmed my fears. And when a fur바카라사이트r comment article of mine was rejected, I from 바카라사이트 editorial board.

My objection was not to 바카라사이트 special issue¡¯s examination of epistemologies and methodologies in terms of racial justice, but ra바카라사이트r to 바카라사이트 way that it simply assumed that all previous epistemologies and methodologies are products of imperialism or racism, and 바카라사이트refore both defective and offensive. Above all, I objected to 바카라사이트 fact that questions about 바카라사이트se assumptions were treated as subversive, and suppressed.

It is, of course, by no means only those on 바카라사이트 Left who attempt to suppress views 바카라사이트y disagree with. But, while most of us protest when 바카라사이트 Right does this, we tend to turn a blind eye when 바카라사이트 cause being protected is one we support.

What is required by way of remedy is not ¡°political balance¡±, but, ra바카라사이트r, that social science communities focus exclusively on what is supposed to be 바카라사이트ir unique, and far from easy, task: producing knowledge. Today, 바카라사이트re are threats to this commitment from both sides of 바카라사이트 political divide.

Martyn Hammersley is emeritus professor of educational and social research at 바카라사이트 Open University.