Re: Perspectives
schwaja3@wfu.edu
Tue, 23 Jan 96 22:06:58 -0500
In response to Jon's question about the researcher's perspective
informing their work and Christine's question of the possibility of value-free
research, this is the way I understood it: A researcher must be affected by his
or her own perspective because we are all human beings and this is the only way
we can make sense of the world as human beings. In everyday life we take into
account the perspective of others. Before one decides to eat the last piece of
pizza one takes into account whether or not we think anyone else wants it, if
everyone has had an equal amount, how it would look in this social situation to
eat this last piece of pizza, etc. However, it seems that the social scientist
is supposed to be more keen in his observations about other people's
perspectives (and he is probably observing things other than pizza eating
behaviors). In making up a questionnaire, for example, social scientists test
the questions to try to ensure that everyone will have the same understanding of
them. Of course this is impossible, but this is an attempt to ascertain the
"truth." The researcher's perspective naturally enters his work, for example,
in what he chooses to study but his perspective should not color the outcome of
his results in that he cannot designate someone as stupid who does not know the
author of the poem "The Road Not Taken." There cannot be immeasurable standards
such as stupid in science. This is what I understood "value free" research to
be. Agreed upon standards (or group prejudices I guess you could say) rather
than individual prejudices are the standard. Of course who is to say what the
standard will be? (And maybe I am completely wrong in my interpretation anyway)
My main question though (there is a question after all those run on sentences)
is: How does Berger reconcile the idea that humans have free will when he says
that the idea of freedom cannot be demonstrated by science or causation? Or
doesn't he? Certainly we would all like to believe that we affect the outcomes
of our lives in some way. Berger says "There is no way of perceiving freedom,
either in oneself or another human being, except through a subjective inner
certainty that dissolves as soon as it is attacked with the tools of scientific
analysis." (That was from Charon's book on pg. 13. The quote was from
Invitation to Sociology (122-124) by Berger) What exactly is Berger's position
on this whole free-will/determinism thing anyway?