Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Relativism in Educational Research

Bibliographic Data

ID12010066
AuthorsJohn A Clark (0000-0002-9230-9739, Massey University, corresponding author)
Year1994
Volume24
Issue1
Pages81-94
Publication date1994-03-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueCurriculum Inquiry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0362-6784 • E-ISSN: 1467-873X
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/03626784.1994.11076150
OpenAlexW2033093536
LanguageEN
References cited18

In their respective discussions of objectivity, subjectivity, and relativism, Eisner (1992a), Barone (1992), and Guba (1992) all make a number of ontological and epistemological claims that, because they are problematic, warrant closer philosophical attention. Objectivity and subjectivity, we are told, are dead, while relativism is very much alive. Of course, we should want to ask, is this combined claim objectively true, subjectively true, or only relatively so? Unfortunately, we are unlikely to be given much of a meaningful answer to this self-referential question. However, it is by no means the case that objectivity and subjectivity are dead-they remain very much alive, and deservedly so. On the other hand, if relativism is alive it should be killed off, forthwith. Something has plainly gone wrong if we must praise relativism at the grave of objectivity and subjectivity. On the contrary, objectivity and subjectivity occupy a central place in educational research, but not relativism. This counterclaim will in due course be made good. But first, some critical comments on the individual elements of the Eisner-Barone-Guba thesis

Economics · Epistemology · Objectivity (philosophy · Praise · Relativism · Subjectivity · Warrant · Educational Philosophies and Pedagogies · Philosophy · Philosophy, Science, and History · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub