Hi,

Objectivity and subjectivity are not necessarily related to conceptual or empirical paper. You can collect data on some variables and interpret them in a very subjective manner (just your opinion). Alternatively, you can develop a robust and reasonable logical rationale for a conceptual paper, and thereby maintain objectivity.

Best regards,

Apurva Sanaria

Hi,

Objectivity and subjectivity are not necessarily related to conceptual or empirical paper. You can collect data on some variables and interpret them in a very subjective manner (just your opinion). Alternatively, you can develop a robust and reasonable logical rationale for a conceptual paper, and thereby maintain objectivity.

Best regards,

Apurva Sanaria

I believe conceptual papers are the outcome of a rigorous review of a disciplinary field guided by a particular question(s). Conceptual papers would normally develop theoretical propositions which are built to be logically valid. I agree with Apurva that this is relevant to the logical rationale you must develop for a conceptual paper. But the logical validity of theoretical propositions does not imply that they are true. They must be subsequently tested empirically. If such empirical testing leads to their validity, then one can assert that such propositions are true.

However, subjectivity and objectivity are not related to the type of paper in question (review paper, conceptual, empirical). They are more related to the reasoning that entails the various processes, their interdependence and feedbacks, underlying the entire research process.

First of all, objectivity is a subset of subjectivity. Objectivity is based on an agreed-upon standard of measurement: we all have agreed on the the length of a ruler, or the markings on a thermometer, etc. Thus, when I measure an object and say it is 2" long or say that water is 5 degrees in temperature, you can do the same thing and come up with the same answer. Objectivity applies to a limited set of actions, carried out on a limited set of objects.

Logic as a mode of argument is also objective: we agree on the rules of arguments (or proofs) and we can all follow along and see if someone has adhered to or violated those rules. But, as we all know about logical arguments, just because something is logical, doesn’t mean it is TRUE, unless the assumptions on which that argument is based are true.

The world of subjectivity is much larger. It turns out that there are not very measurements about which we actually agree. Note, also, that agreed upon standards of measurement may allow one to be *precise,* but they do not guarantee that one is also *accurate*. Even in science, there are arguments about definitions, scales of measure, and outcomes. In this sense, subjectivity is the rule, and objectivity is the exception.

A concept paper is generally a paper from a field in which standards of measurement are not generally agreed upon, though sometimes it is an attempt to change an existing paradigm. It is usually an entry into an ongoing argument, and stakes a claim for a particular set of assumptions, standards of measurement, or set of outcomes. It attempts to explain (usually logically) why the proposed conceptual framework is more likely to return a valid result than other frameworks that have been or are being used.

In my estimation, a good concept paper is a counterproposal based on assumptions that are “argued for” to the lowest level possible, and which then builds an alternate structure based on a logical argument that proceeds from the new set of assumptions. So the argument itself is objective (logic-based), but the premises and/or standards of measurement are often subjective (not yet agreed-upon).

Judgements can always be subjective, but arguments should necessarily be objective.