During one of my graduate classes, the professor assigned two of us to read John of Damascus' treatise on the icons. I had been raised in the Catholic tradition, so everything he said made total sense to me. I confidently reported that to the class. The other student who was assigned the topic was a Protestant minister. He began his presentation with, "I think this is total crap...". It was a powerful demonstration of how we bring our own baggage to any analysis.

Can you in whatever country you study the suggested questions be impartial? Martin Luther did but was not necessarily right in everything he did.

If they are honest and have the truth on their side, they can be (obiective, impartial)

In my opinion, a completely independent study is basically impossible. Another thing is what will influence the research position. If there is a dependence on ideological interests, the adequate results of the study will be questionable. But if the dependence will be on the scientific paradigm or traditions of the scientific school, I think it is normal. In the first case, the researcher will have to adjust his conclusions to the ideological interest. In the second case, the researcher will check the productivity of the scientific paradigm and, if the new findings do not coincide with the accepted manner of interpretation, it is possible to correct or change the research paradigm.

Desde que sejam honestos e objectivos, enquanto investigadores, claro que podem ser imparciais. Qual seria a alternativa? Não creio que um ateu ou agnóstico garanta verdadeira imparcialidade em matéria de fenómeno religioso.

Sine irra et studio or value-free approach are ideal criteria for social science-building, and we should strive to create independent scientific products.

During one of my graduate classes, the professor assigned two of us to read John of Damascus' treatise on the icons. I had been raised in the Catholic tradition, so everything he said made total sense to me. I confidently reported that to the class. The other student who was assigned the topic was a Protestant minister. He began his presentation with, "I think this is total crap...". It was a powerful demonstration of how we bring our own baggage to any analysis.

There could be objectiveness in the approach but complete impartiality is not guaranteed

I think a similar question of bias could be asked about scholars who study the politics of countries and case studies outside their own. Would they be bringing unique perspectives to the issues they're researching or would they be imposing a framework that may not account for all the subtle nuances of a particular country or case? As has been iterated above, I think being able to address one's own biases when conducting research would be a good step towards producing quality works of scholarship

Yes, to have belief, feelings and likes regarding an Ideology/Religion/ does not stop from understanding the hierarchy of values and ideas of any other metaphyisical understandings of reality and life purposes. That implies the ability to apply that understanding to everyday actions. Hence, a republican can understand the way a democrat acts, and so muslim people have the ability to understand catholics, and so on.

let's suppose I am not a capitalist, this premise does not stop me from understanding the principle of capitalism: free market and competition forces providers to sell the right product to the right person with the rice price, reaching a wellfare status.

let's suppose I am not a socialist, this premise does not stop me from understanding the principle of socialism: free market and competition might provide wellfare status, but there is not guarantee, it tends to monopolies, and there might be economical crisis. Only Government regulation can guarantee the wellfare in front of market mistakes.

Thank you for all the precious voices so far!

They are thought-provoking.

And I'm looking forward to getting more food for thought!

With kind regards,

K

Impartiality in your mentioned cases cannot exist. This is also the reason why certain and specifically financed research think tanks do exist to push ideas and ideologies through certain gates of decision-making.

https://www.sociostudies.org/ would be an example to follow an impartial path, i.e. to establish social science as really science.

This is the great challenge of the researcher to be neutral and not biased, in my opinion, the researcher achieves this impartiality.

Theoretically, the researcher should be impartial. But in practice it is very difficult, most often impossible. Even in non-ideological sciences, such as materials science or chemistry. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no one formally puts pressure on the researcher, but his own passions and views, society as whole, public opinion, plus the needs to receive funding, voluntarily or unwittingly force him to take a position, often belonging to the mainstream. Moreover, even a non-conformist position is not a result of one’s own development, but the fact of belonging to a group, character traits, rivalry, etc. (Brodsky once said: "If he is against, I am for it!") ...

Ou o investigador é capaz de ser imparcial ou não é um verdadeiro investigador em Ciências.

Either the researcher is capable of being impartial or not a true science researcher.

José Brissos-Lino Ideals are like stars, we can look at them, but not touch them.

I am in support of these ideas and ideals. The human reality of science, however, is much more ambivalent; for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

Can scholars who study politics in their own country or their religion be impartial?

The humorous answer to this is: Yes, they can. But not for a long while.

On a more serious note, I believe in general there are three types of countries where the following answers are working:

1. One can research, talk, and publish in everywhere where people of your views are in a dominant position.

2. One can research, talk only to family and friends, and publish abroad (possibly using a pseudonym).

3. One can't do anything. One can't trust anyone. The punishment is cruel whether it's a legal one, or out of the law.

It is of fundamental importance to address (and control for) research biases in our studies. Among other things, experimenter bias may have implications for how we study, diagnose, and treat religious/non-religious people. Surprisingly, this is often a neglected topic in Health Research.

I have published a paper on this issue in the Journal of Religion and Health. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10943-018-0639-6

Many thanks for all the voices thus far!

And I'm waiting for more thought-provoking opinions.

With best wishes,

K

What do you mean by "one's philosophical location", Kelvin?

Many scholars have got clearly defined political views or are followers of a religion.

Does this not interfere with the study of politics in their own country or their religion/denomination?

Is it possible to reconcile one's views with objectivity in the study of these areas?

If yes, how is it possible to reconcile the two things?

I think it varies from person to person

Best Regards Krzysztof Trzcinski

I think the researcher should clearly point his personal position and biases first and then discuss how this position or framework may alter his arguments and results

In Turkey, No! Unfortunately the anti-intellectualism endemic in Turkish society is best illustrated by those who wield political power. If there is Self-censorship there is no impartiality.

You can check HRW's factsheet on Turkish government’s clampdown on academic freedom:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/14/turkey-government-targeting-academics

You can also check out the study - Social Scientists under Threat: Resistance and Self-censorship in Turkish Academiaexternal link, opens in new window, published in the British Journal of Educational Studies:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071005.2018.1502872

It's difficult to eliminate the bias; however, one can channelize that sentimental argument.

Yes, a researcher must be impartial and it is possible when this research aptitude becomes a way of life for them. The cognitive domain of learning changes to affective and psychomotor domain. Also, this is absolutely necessary and specially so in doing health system research where you need to compare interventions, policy decisions and implementations na dthereby analyse the hypothesis.

Yes, but religion or surrounding situations are the first teacher to human.

In a religion and nationally uniform country, whatever a religion is, it's tolerable as long as it it doesn't interfier with technologies, sciences, and economic development at large. Otherwise, the country doesn't have a path to people progress and well being. In countries, having a high mixture of nations and religions, there are two hurdles to overcome. First off, habits and prejudices of one religion and people are in a strict conflict with the same of other one(s). That alone can bring a country on its knees. Once this type of a conflict is over, the second conflict is a multinational competition in playing a dominating role in a society -that can keep a country down for many decades. Then, once a country got rid from religious and national conflicts and significantly improved their economic prestige and status, a new conflict abscess is bruing and bursting - people at the bottom of the well being ladder begin fighting for power to redisribute the wealth with the people in the middle, and at the top of that ladder. Conflicts are never ending! The root cause in each particular case is a conflict of interests. However, interests them-selves are ever changing!

In summary: scientists / researchers ought to be impartial to inform a society on what are vulnerabilities and threats to a society's well being, and what's the least painful way to move ahead for the time being according to the threat analyses. The lack of such people, or their neglect lead to exceptionally dramatic sufferings of massess of people.