Want to create interactive content? It’s easy in Genially!
DIDACTICS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
JOAN SEBASTIAN MUNOZ BURBANO
Created on September 24, 2024
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
Transcript
DIDACTICS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Group: 28
Index
1.
Community-Based Collaborative Archaeology Alison Wylie
2.
Social Epistemology in Practice Miriam Solomon.
3.
Values in Social Science Heather Douglas
Feminist Standpoint Theory Sharon Crasnow
Community-Based Collaborative Archaeology Alison Wylie
Alison Wylie's article "Community-Based Collaborative Archaeology" examines how archaeology has been transformed by incorporating and cooperating with local communities, especially local indigenous peoples. This article defines how collaboration not only enriches archaeology from different perspectives, but also re-establishes the concept of objectivity through the social method of epistemology, which successfully emphasizes how social and contextual values can enhance the development of knowledge and challenge the idea that science must remain isolated from external influences
1. The Context for Collaborative Practice: A Sea Change in Archaeology
According to Wylie, archaeology has undergone a fundamental change in recent decades, which has driven the involvement of descendant communities, who consider archaeological sites and the remains of their ancestors as part of a cultural heritage, which traditionally were resources for science, regardless of the rights of local communities. In analyzing, I consider that this perspective was based on the notion that science should operate in an objective manner, free of cultural and social values that could bias the results. However, these native peoples objected and thus the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990 in the United States. This law obliged archaeologists to consult and respect the traditions of the communities before studying or exposing human remains and cultural artifacts.
According to Wylie (2015), this law described that "archaeologists could no longer arrogate to themselves privileges of access and control over materials they considered essential, and the principles of autonomy and disciplinary self-determination were publicly questioned," recognizing that archaeological sites and artifacts are not simply academic resources, but vital parts of the history and identity of indigenous peoples. On the other hand, this change in archaeological practice resulted in the questioning of traditional scientific authority, which had been defined by its independence in which archaeologists could no longer automatically assume control over cultural materials and instead, had to collaborate with communities to define the conditions of access, study and repatriation of remains, marking a significant transformation in the relationship between science and communities, promoting a more ethical and culturally sensitive practice.
2.Kwaday Dän Ts’inchi
This text also addresses the conflicts arising from this change, highlighting the tensions between science and local communities over the ownership of knowledge and control of cultural remains. One of the cases that is exposed and is considered the most emblematic was that of the "Kennewick Man", remains of a human body approximately 9,200 years old discovered in Washington (USA), this finding triggered a legal battle between archaeologists who defended that the study of these remains was essential to advance the knowledge of the first inhabitants of North America and the native tribes who claimed that the remains were returned and treated according to their traditions. Wylie (2015) mentions that "this debate over "who owns the past" has been presented as an unresolvable conflict between science and religion, or more generally, between universally relevant science and culturally specific forms of understanding." Although some scientists were fearful that repatriation would compromise scientific integrity, Wylie argues that collaboration does not necessarily mean a loss for science, but can open up new possibilities and enrich research.
In contrast, the author of the text also highlights examples of collaboration, such as the Tongass Cave project in Alaska, where archaeologists and indigenous communities worked together to study ancient human remains without the legal confrontations that marked the Kennewick Man case. This demonstrated that it was possible to integrate scientific and community interests in a respectful and productive way, enriching both research and understanding of the cultural past.
What's Gained by Collaboration?
According to Wylie, collaborating with local communities is not only an ethical issue, but also brings important benefits to archaeology. First, these collaborations allow scientists to explore questions they might not otherwise consider. For example, in the Kwaday Dän Ts'inchi project in Canada, community involvement led archaeologists to do DNA testing, allowing questions about family and cultural ties to be explored that archaeologists would not have considered on their own, bringing community interests into the research from new perspectives and approaches. In addition, communities bring local and traditional knowledge that can enhance the interpretation of findings. Knowledge about ecology, cultural practices and oral traditions help archaeologists to see the remains in a more complete and contextualized way. These inputs enrich the science and allow for a more accurate reconstruction of the past. According to Wylie (2015), "by engaging in earnest with descendant communities, the difference with other ways of thinking highlights the contingent and evolving nature of the discipline's own goals and standards of justification," resulting in archaeologists questioning their own methods, as interacting with communities that have different ways of seeing the world, scientists are forced to reflect on their own practices and assess whether they are really answering the right questions
What's the Philosophical Rationale?
Wylie considers social influences as threats to the integrity of science and suggests that collaboration between science and native communities can serve as valuable resources to enrich research, contributing to the inclusion of diverse perspectives, improving the quality of knowledge and allowing the identification of new ideas that can question and improve the methods established by traditional archaeology. In other words, Helen Longino's proceduralist theory of justification is taken into account, to argue that objectivity should not be understood as an absence of values, but as a process of inclusive critique that values contributions from diverse perspectives; it also argues that the most reliable knowledge emerges from communities and transformative critical inquiry, ensuring that not only specific beliefs are reviewed, but also the underlying issues and established norms.
This is in order to contemplate the lessons that collaborative archaeology has, in addition to the implications beyond this discipline, suggesting that many other areas of science could benefit from a more integrative and reflexive approach, in which the knowledge of native communities and marginalized perspectives are not only acknowledged, but actively integrated into knowledge production, enabling exclusionary dynamics within science to be corrected and fostering greater equity and fairer representation of diverse communities. In short, science can greatly benefit from adopting a more inclusive and open approach to dialogue with stakeholders who have traditionally been marginalized from research processes. Finally, it can be concluded that collaboration in archaeology not only improves the quality of knowledge produced, but also redefines what it means to do science ethically and responsibly, involving communities in research, by making science more inclusive and respectful, able to address complex questions that transcend the boundaries of traditional disciplines by responding to the needs and concerns of living communities, succeeding in redesigning the quality of knowledge and strengthening scientific practice in a more just and equitable approach to knowledge production.
Social Epistemology in Practice Miriam Solomon.
This article presents a particular case which has as its protagonist Sara G., a 42-year-old woman who faces a complicated decision: should she have a routine mammogram, this questioning manifests itself as a simple question, but in reality it encompasses many issues, since the use of mammograms in women aged 40 to 49 years is a rather controversial topic. According to Solomon (2014), "traditional epistemological tools, logic, confirmation theory, etc. are not sufficient to understand and evaluate the controversy." Since the development of this technology in the 1960s, mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years has been the subject of debate due to the lack of agreement among health experts. This is also due to the fact that scientific evidence has not been able to conclusively resolve whether this procedure is beneficial for this group of women.
From individual epistemology to social epistemology
Traditionally, individual epistemology has focused on how individuals can know and evaluate truth through logic and evidence. However, in scientific subjects, such as mammograms, certainty is relied upon by experts, since most people cannot conduct scientific research on their own. Solomon proposes that if Sara wants to know if a mammogram is beneficial to her, she should rely on the results of previous work done by physicians. Therefore, she needs to trust the experts and the review system that ensures the quality of the research. However, it is also mentioned that scientific knowledge is subject to errors, biases and limitations in its methodology, which is where social epistemology comes into play, which recognizes that knowledge is not simply a matter of individual evidence, but a social construct that includes trust in experts and institutions.
Expert Agreement and Consensus
Therefore, the key issues to address social epistemology lean towards the role of experts, since in medicine, clinical guidelines are based on conferences where a group of experts discuss and agree on recommendations. However, when experts disagree, as in the case of mammograms for women, the situation becomes more complicated, Solomon (2014) notes that "some organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, recommend annual mammograms, while others, such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, advise against routine mammography." These circumstances in which agreement is presented cause uncertainty and undermine the authority of medical recommendations, leaving patients like Sara G. without clear guidance to make informed decisions.
Warm cognition
One of the cases presented relates to warm cognition, which boils down to the interests and emotions of healthcare professionals and their influence on their recommendations. For example, radiologists, who have a direct interest in performing mammograms, might be in favor of promoting them as an essential tool. In turn, epidemiologists, who tend to prioritize efficiency in public health spending, might favor the reduction of costly tests. In summary, these biases make it possible to critically evaluate the recommendations of experts and ensure that medical decisions are based on solid evidence and not on personal or professional interests
Scientific Reasoning, Ideologies and Standpoint Critiques
Another key element mentioned by the author is that scientific knowledge can be affected or influenced by the beliefs, values or ideologies of the society in which it is established; in the case of mammograms, there is the belief that detecting cancer early is always beneficial. However, not all forms of breast cancer are equally treatable, which calls this assumption into question. For example, the idea that we should monitor our health through regular check-ups is not just a scientific belief, but is strongly influenced by social and cultural values, especially in contexts such as the United States, where individual control over health is highly valued. This is in contrast to other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where a more conservative approach is presented and where unnecessary non-intervention is valued. This demonstrates how cultural values can influence the way science is interpreted and applied. In this sense, standpoint theory also suggests that those outside these beliefs, such as patients or marginalized groups, are more able to criticize and question these procedures. Thus, more inclusive and broader discussions can be generated around issues such as mammography.
Goals and values
On the other hand, the decision to have a mammogram is not only to prevent cancer; some factors must also be considered, such as fears and unnecessary treatments that may come from an erroneous diagnosis. In this way, we can see that the decision to have a mammogram is more about individual values and circumstances, as well as the social context involved in these decisions. Likewise, in the United States, mammograms are often paid for by insurance companies when promoting medical care, while in the United Kingdom, the public health organization focuses more on women over 50 years of age. This is how different contexts influence personal decisions.
Epistemological Diversity
As for social epistemology, it also introduces the notion of epistemological diversity, which argues that a diverse approach is beneficial for knowledge production. Solomon (2014) argues that "epistemological diversity tends to generate a division of cognitive labor", this allows different approaches to address different aspects of a problem. However, in some cases, certain voices are ignored or undervalued, leading to testimonial injustice. Thus, in the women's health movements of the 1960s and 1970s, women's experiences were ignored, resulting in a less inclusive and therefore less reliable science.
Testimonial Injustice
Similarly, testimonial injustice occurs when certain perspectives, such as those of patients, are ignored or devalued due to prejudice. In the past, women's voices have been undervalued in medical discussions, resulting in less inclusive and comprehensive healthcare decisions. In short, the injustice harms both patients and the knowledge generated. Although progress has been made in including diverse perspectives, it remains necessary to question whether all relevant voices are truly incorporated into medical research. Currently, although diversity in mammographic research has improved, it is still important to question whether the research reflects a true diversity of approaches.
Agnathology
On the other hand, the study of ignorance known as agnathology, focuses on how certain cultures can create and maintain ignorance about certain topics. Solomon (2014) states that the focus on mammography "has diverted resources from research on deeper causes such as breast cancer to research on environmental factors." This narrow focus may cloud other areas of research that could have a more significant impact on public health
Special Circumstances
In some cases, mammography recommendations may vary with each individual. For example, some women who have various types of family history, in whom breast cancer has developed or some specific genetic diseases may benefit from frequent screenings. This is how the author implies that recommendations should be tailored to the needs of each patient, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
General Normative Concerns
According to some social epistemologists, such as Helen Longino, standards for evaluating the quality of scientific knowledge should be proposed, so that these standards include equality of intellectual authority and the ability to respond to criticism. Solomon (2014) mentions that these standards would allow for "more objective evaluation and more reliable knowledge production," which is crucial in scientific debates such as mammography. In conclusion, this article provides us with a deeper understanding of complex debates such as mammography. This by analyzing the reliance on experts, biases, ideologies, and diversity of perspectives through which we can make more conscious decisions. In short, we can critically examine the social and cultural factors that influence science. Although there is no definitive answer for Sara G. on whether she should have a mammogram, analysis through social epistemology offers valuable tools for making informed decisions aware of the multiple factors affecting science and public health
Values in Social Science Heather Douglas
In the social sciences, according to Douglas from their beginnings, have had an inferiority complex compared to the natural sciences, because they have not produced clear empirical results, such as those obtained by the natural sciences in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the social sciences, human values such as ethics, normative and moral values have played a more prominent role, since the subjects of study are people and communities. These considerations have led to the perception that the social sciences are more value-laden in their research, interpreted as a deficit in their reliability and, therefore, they are less objective or reliable than the natural sciences. Values in the text reflect normative or emotional commitments that individuals assume, which can be explicit or implicit. Likewise, They may also reflect different aspects such as commitments to ethical values, social patterns of conduct, or even characteristics that one wishes to have in the world. (Douglas, p. 163). Values can be divided into those that relate to epistemic or cognitive practices and those that relate to moral and social life.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
Cognitive values, such as concern for simplicity, explanatory power, or predictive accuracy, are generally accepted in science, while moral and social values are more controversial. However, some philosophers, such as Phyllis Rooney, have argued that even cognitive values can be affected by social and cultural factors, questioning the idea that these values are completely neutral or independent of external contexts. From this, Douglas focuses on three areas of concern regarding values in the social sciences, in the research process: first the direction of research, second scientific inference, and third the language used in science. On the first point, values and the direction of research, a researcher must make decisions about what areas to investigate and how to do it. These decisions are influenced by factors such as academic training, availability of funding, and personal or social values. However, these influences are not necessarily problematic; on the contrary, diversity of values can enrich research by providing a broader range of perspectives and research questions.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
Researchers can and should investigate what interests them and their motivations may be driven by a variety of values. For example, social researchers may be interested in human communication on social networks because they appreciate the beauty of the patterns of interaction (aesthetic value), because of the need to understand contemporary culture (moral value), or because they find the area of research intimately interesting (personal epistemic value) (Douglas, p. 165). Hence, social, ethical, personal and epistemic values influence scientific decisions, from the choice of topics to methodological approaches. Such as the Nuremberg, Tuskegee, Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, in which the lack of ethical considerations showed how science can be influenced by decisions that do not prioritize human well-being, because they somehow violated the rights and well-being of participants, exposing them to physical, psychological or social risks without full consent or with deception. Although valuable knowledge was obtained in these studies, the lack of ethical protection in scientific research was highlighted.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
The social researcher must therefore determine what is more relevant: the value of human autonomy and fully informed consent of participants or the value of the knowledge that could be generated, assessing whether the discomfort caused to the subjects justifies the knowledge obtained; this is a recurring theme in research ethics. Furthermore, privacy ethics requires carefully considering the risks versus the value of the data, always prioritising human rights. In scientific research, values can influence methodology which may be more fraught. A researcher may be tempted to develop a methodology that guarantees a specific result, rather than seeking objective evidence. For example, if a researcher strongly believes that breeding dogs improves parenting skills and manipulates his study, discarding data that contradicts his hypothesis and adjusting in such a way as to ensure the desired result, this compromises the validity of scientific knowledge. Scientific methods should allow for genuine discoveries, not particular results; knowledge should not be sought in violation of moral and ethical principles; values can prevail over the value of knowledge. But they should not undermine the search for objective evidence, so scientists must seek a balance between the value of knowledge and ethical principles so as not to compromise the integrity of the scientific process.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
On the second point, values and inference. According to Douglas, “the importance of values in shaping the direction and methodologies of the social sciences is widely recognized and not controversial” (p. 172), however, there is something more worrying and that is how these values can negatively influence scientific inference, because throughout history there have been cases where scientists have distorted the interpretation of evidence and have even ignored it or fabricated it to fit their beliefs. Among these cases are those of scientists Cyril Burt and Marc Hauser, who manipulated data to support their theories due to a strong conviction in their ideas. Burt falsified data on the heritability of intelligence, while Hauser was accused of falsifying results in research on animal cognition. These cases violated the value of knowledge, which is unacceptable. Values can bias and distort a scientific analysis, rather than supporting research. Therefore, scientists and philosophers have argued that the reasoning inherent in science should be “value-free,” and to counteract these risks, scientists use experimental blinding, which reduces the impact of personal values or beliefs on the analysis process.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
Now, it is important to mention that values can play a direct or indirect role in scientific inference. The first one plays a direct role in reasoning, as in the cases presented above, where values determined about handling the evidence, directly shaping how it is characterized and interpreted. The indirect role is more subtle and difficult to avoid, because it operates only through the uncertainty in the statement being made (Douglas 2008). In other words, scientific inference is marked by a certain degree of uncertainty, and values play a crucial role in assessing the risk of making a mistake in conclusions. Values can guide the acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis when the results are not conclusive, which in itself does not affect the data, but how they are interpreted or applied, which is closely related to ethical and social issues. In this role, values can become complex when studies have social or political implications, since the results can influence decisions that affect society. The assessment of the risks and benefits of conclusions becomes a question of social values, as Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment had social implications, generating ethical debates about the use of results to influence policies related to the prison system and human behavior in contexts of power. Values are important in science, they influence how uncertainty is handled and when evidence is considered sufficient, but these values must be prevented from changing the evidence to suit personal preferences; on the contrary, there must be total transparency to maintain scientific integrity.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
Finally, there is the third point, language. According to Douglas, “values have a pervasive, if limited, role to play in social science inference” (p. 178). However, there is a more subtle influence, of concern, in how value-laden language affects scientific knowledge, as scientists use language in the development of their work. They often create new terms or use existing ones, but when language carries value connotations, it can distort understanding of phenomena. For example, philosopher John Dupré has analyzed how scientists who research animal behavior have used the term “rape” to refer to animal behavior. This can obscure significant differences between human rape and animal behavior, creating a distortion in understanding that impacts on the original meaning of the term. On the other hand, there are cases where the use of value-laden terms can contribute to improved understanding, as Root (2007 cited in Douglas) argues that the terms “spousal abuse” and “wife battering” have enabled the conceptual organisation of abuse and prompted policy changes, hence sometimes the use of a value-laden term can clarify rather than confuse.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
Likewise, some concepts used in the social sciences become controversial because their normative content is unavoidable, such as “involuntary unemployment”, where the implications and value judgements that these terms bring to a categorisation, evaluation of circumstances. Value-laden language occurs in the social sciences, as well as in the biological and medical sciences, where linguistic choices can influence the perception of phenomena such as the toxicity of pollutants, often reflect moral judgements and must be handled with care. It is therefore important for researchers to be aware of the values implicit in language, evaluating whether their choice is clear or confusing, and recognizing the limitations of created analogies, metaphors, and connotations (Douglas p. 180). Researchers can and should resort to human language, but they must be careful of the problems that language can bring. In conclusion, the social and natural sciences face challenges similar to those of value relations, but the social sciences are more complex because they study human behavior. Social, ethical, personal, and epistemic values influence all aspects of the scientific process, from the selection of topics to the interpretation of results.
90%
Es visual
90% de la información que procesamos nos llega a travésde la vista.
50% de nuestro cerebro está involucrado en el procesamiento de estímulos visuales.
La pasión que provoca el storytelling es nuestra aliada.
Science, Social Sciences and Feminist Critiques In 2009, US President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice, stating that the law is based on experience, overcoming obstacles and understanding the world. Eight years earlier, Sonia, in a speech called “the voice of a Latina judge,” said that a Latina woman, because of her experiences, could reach better conclusions than a white man who has not had those experiences. These words were highly controversial, with debates about whether personal experiences could influence the objectivity of the judicial system. These debates and those that have surrounded feminist philosophy of science share many similarities, because they question the idea that science must be completely objective and free of social or personal influences to avoid biases that can harm the search for scientific knowledge. However, feminists in the social sciences in the last 30 years have expressed that social characteristics such as gender, race and social class influence the knowledge that is acquired and at the same time enrich it, because it provides a broader view of the phenomena being studied. Feminists challenge the traditional notion of scientific objectivity, suggesting that the particular experiences and social positions of researchers are necessary for the creation of knowledge.
Feminist Standpoint Theory Sharon Crasnow
Therefore, to determine how and why the feminist standpoint theory is presented as one of the three alternatives to the traditional philosophy of science proposed by Sandra Harding, this theory has roots in Marxism, partly because people in different social/political positions have access to information that is often not available to people in more privileged positions, in these positions relevant evidence can be obtained for the development of hypotheses and the choice of theories, the location of the researcher and the location of those investigated is important to produce more complete and accurate knowledge. But these points challenge the traditional notion that science should be objective and free from contextual influences. According to Crasnow, women and their experiences throughout history were excluded as researchers and as subjects of research in the social sciences. This exclusion resulted in an androcentric bias in the knowledge produced, that is, women were ignored and underestimated and only the knowledge generated by men was taken into account. However, feminists have come to understand over time that it is not just about inclusion, but that conceptual frameworks such as women's work must be reformulated. Traditionally, work is defined as paid employment in the public sphere, but this understanding has a consequence in which domestic work is invisible, excluding domestic work performed by the majority of women. Recognizing domestic work as such changes the definition of "work" and makes visible a key aspect of women's lives that has not been taken into account. Likewise, the concept of “sexual harassment” was previously attributed to experiences of humiliation that women faced at work, seen as isolated incidents, rather than as part of a broader social pattern.
Feminist standpoint theory is characterized by three theses: the situated knowledge thesis, the epistemic privilege thesis, and the achievement thesis. The situated knowledge thesis states that knowledge is partial and is influenced by the social, cultural, and political context, by the subject that produces it, rejecting the possibility of “view from nowhere” that in traditional science is considered the ideal of objectivity. (Crasnow, p. 147). In addition, it is argued that marginalized groups, such as women, African Americans, Latinos, and the poor, have access to different knowledge than individuals with more power cannot have. But the inequality of power causes knowledge to be influenced by social position, creating different interests depending on the place that people occupy. In this sense, the metaphors of situated knowledge and social location give rise to key methodological concepts in the theory: the insider/outsider who has a “double vision.” That is, having an understanding from the analytical perspective as a researcher and from the experiences of the researched. On the other hand, the second thesis of epistemic privilege has been somewhat misinterpreted. It is believed that women have automatic access to knowledge only because they are women, and this is not the case because knowledge and experiences can vary due to different factors such as race or socioeconomic level. This misinterpretation can lead to extreme relativism with infinite social locations or to ignoring the real differences between women.
Therefore, to better understand epistemic privilege, it is necessary to see it in conjunction with the thesis of situated knowledge and differentiate it from perspective. According to Harding (2004, cited in Crasnow) “feminist standpoint theory maps practices of power and oppressive relations, places a distinctive vision on oppression, the perspectives of the oppressed are not automatically privileged and focuses on the creation of group consciousness rather than that of individuals” (p. 149). Likewise, Harding highlights the thesis of achievement as a process by which oppressed groups develop a collective political consciousness, because if social location is thought of only as an individual perspective, relevant aspects can be overlooked. On the other hand, one of the challenges faced by feminist standpoint theory is epistemic relativism in which it suggests that knowledge is relative to a specific group or individual, instead of there being a universal set of beliefs that can be considered as objective knowledge as in traditional science. Therefore, feminists offer three alternatives to approach objectivity: First, a “strong objectivity” that is opposed to objectivism, which is seen as disinterested and free of social, cultural and political values. For Harding (2004, cited in Crasnow) “strong objectivity demands that the subject of knowledge be placed on the same critical plane as the objects of knowledge” (p. 150), where the subject reflects on the processes, production of knowledge and integrates democratic values such as equality and justice with the purpose of developing good research.
Second, rehabilitating objectivity, Alison Wylie says that objectivity is not an established property of knowledge. On the contrary, it depends on how the claims fit a given set of epistemic virtues such as the ability to explain and evidence, so objectivity should not be seen as something absolute, but rather virtues that are more important for each particular context should be chosen. Third: interest-based objectivity. Another way to understand objectivity is to recognize that we are working with simplified conceptual models and not with complex models of our environment. Daston & Galison (1992, cited in Crasnow) “called the objects of research objects of work where features of our world are always investigated, but they are not always relevant” (p. 154). That is why science must choose and build functional objects to facilitate meaningful research questions. When researchers create these objects to answer specific questions based on their interests, then the interests will guide the choice of characteristics, modeling, and whether it is relevant. Objectivity, in this part, is linked to how these objects allow the research objectives to be achieved, but they must conform to empirical restrictions if they are useful and effective in practice. For example, in a research by Stanko, the safety of women was studied, showing some of the self-defense strategies such as safe routes and schedules to avoid aggression. These are different from those traditionally considered in criminology as self-defense.
On the other hand, feminists point out that there has been research where the domestic work done by most women has been ignored. This aspect has often been overlooked in traditional studies, which focus on more visible and accepted aspects. The feminist theory of standpoint perspective highlights the importance of taking into account the interests and experiences of women, since by doing so it is possible to highlight the differences between the reality of women and the concepts used by the social sciences. This theory also maintains that knowledge reflects the interests of those who create it and these give rise to different objects in the world. However, Gaile Pohlhaus criticizes this view because she says that it focuses on an individual location and not on social complexity, that knowledge should be a social and political construction, where common interests are negotiated within social groups. The theory argues that social and political interests can positively influence knowledge, rather than bias it. In conclusion, the theory criticizes traditional science and offers alternatives that allow the visibility of the experiences of marginalized groups such as women, contributing to a more equitable and profound knowledge of reality. In addition, social, cultural and political values are not obstacles to objectivity, but rather key elements that can be enriched in the process of knowledge formation.