Suppose you are a sociologist studying alleged police brutality. Construct two a
ID: 3447834 • Letter: S
Question
Suppose you are a sociologist studying alleged police brutality. Construct two arguments, one proposing that you ought to be as objective as possible in your work and the other suggesting that, while striving for accuracy, you should take a stand against any injustices which your research may u cover. Which position do you find more convincing? And why? Suppose you are a sociologist studying alleged police brutality. Construct two arguments, one proposing that you ought to be as objective as possible in your work and the other suggesting that, while striving for accuracy, you should take a stand against any injustices which your research may u cover. Which position do you find more convincing? And why?Explanation / Answer
As a Sociologist studying police brutality, I am constructing two arguments;
The first argument stands for being as objective as possible in the pursuit of studying police brutality. Being objective in doing research means that one keeps a distance from what they are studying in order to not let their prejudices, beliefs, values, and biases in the way of the collection of data and analysis.In a sense, this means that there is an independent reality waiting to be uncovered.
On the contrary, my second stand asks me to follow a subjective stand. This means that I am expected to collect and interpret data as per my personal opinion and feelings.I am allowed to take a stand against the injustices uncovered by me during the course of my research.
As a researcher, I would be inclined towards the first stand of being objective in research. I feel so because I am only in the field for a particular time and not aware of the whole side of the story whatever people tell me is the truth for me. Acting on this basis is going to result in biased judgment.