Stéphanie AbrialResearcher at the Pacte laboratory and lecturer at Sciences Po Grenoble

How would you define objectivity in the social sciences?

Objectivity is undoubtedly one of the most indispensable and difficult qualities to acquire in the social sciences. Because it is a requirement of accuracy and impartiality, it seems a priori to be a solid bulwark against any risk of bias or falsification. In our way of questioning social facts, the possibility for others to experience our research is a guarantee of scientific solidity. As a researcher, I aspire to this. She considers facts, knowledge and data in their entirety. She implements a constructed device, thus having the possibility of mobilizing multiple frameworks of knowledge. In fact, objectivity calls for hindsight, time and the necessary distance. In a public debate where opinions seem to be marked by the fulgurating force of certain theories that are over-publicized, but not necessarily verified according to scientific criteria, the objectivity of the researcher appears to be a healthy benchmark. Objectivity is a sort of trademark, and can be defined as the ability to analyze social phenomena accurately.

But in reality, while objectivity may appear to be a powerful anchor, the process of achieving it is not so straightforward. Objectivity is tested and confronted. In this sense, it's a goal we can work towards. When, for example, I study the voting motivations of particular voters, when I conduct interviews or analyze survey data, I myself am permeated by my knowledge - both scholarly and lay - by my doubts, by the benchmarks of my education, by my experiences, by the language I work with. My prior knowledge integrates a vision linked to my own experience. It is also measured against that of others, peers. And without doubt, the first quality that characterizes the researcher in his or her relationship with objectivity is to be fully aware of his or her fragility. To be aware that we will probably never be able to be totally objective. And to make this an element of strength, of knowledge and of appreciation of our results. It's precisely from this state that knowledge can be built and nuanced.

In saying this, I'm reminded of Bachelard's words: "When it comes to scientific culture, the mind is never young. It is even very old, because it has the age of its prejudices. To access science is to be spiritually rejuvenated, to accept a sudden mutation that contradicts a past". In fact, objectivity, in my opinion, is this necessary rejuvenation of the scientific mind. It's the freshness that comes with every research project, giving scientists the freedom to choose their subjects - without pressure or constraint - to produce their own questions and analytical frameworks, and to express social facts.

 Is researcher neutrality possible and desirable?

At the beginning of a search, there's often an intuition. Like an initial curiosity that raises questions and fuels an exploration engine. At this point of origin, it's rare to be neutral - for that would be to be detached from all desire, indifferent to the content of what others, our peers, have produced and ultimately cut off from the world and the way of life in that same world. It would be to be, as it were, impassive to the bubbling of initial enthusiasm. In this sense, social science research involves the person who initiates it. In my opinion, it's a total commitment that is far from neutral, and involves who you are, what you do and what you believe in. Neutrality is therefore neither possible nor really desirable. I even think it would be detrimental to our understanding of the social phenomena we're trying to observe.

And yet, in the next stage, that of constructing, objectifying and transmitting knowledge, it seems to me that partiality is transformed. Perhaps doubts and confrontation with different theoretical frameworks also erode certain certainties. It seems to me that the design of survey tools such as questionnaires, or even experiments, leads, for example, to the standardization of protocols and indicators. Empirical work contributes to taking the measure of what we're studying. To standardize it further, so as to better compare the resulting knowledge. It is also clear that the use of standardized analysis models, as well as access to certain data sets and analysis software, neutralizes the effects of commitment on the part of the researcher.

How important are methods to you as a researcher?

Social science methods play a central role in my research. I work mainly on questions of political sociology: elections, voting, political parties, politicization, social movements. And methods are a cornerstone of these scientific activities, both individual and collective. I can't imagine writing a paper, communicating at a conference or producing results without backing them up with primary or secondary data. I love discussing methods with my colleagues. Being able to open the "black box" and make analysis choices transparent, accessible and debatable. I've also been teaching social science methods to Grenoble students for many years. It's an immense pleasure. In these courses, I try to instill curiosity and the need to constantly question the way in which information is produced. 

Methodological issues are important and I'm passionate about them because they involve two aspects that I remember Pierre Favre loved to get us talking about: the cumulativity and refutability of our knowledge. Throughout my university career, I was lucky enough to learn from some absolutely fantastic teachers. They opened up worlds to me, and I thank them for that. Observation, investigation, experimentation and the study of traces are all approaches that I was able to experiment with and that I still use today. In recent years, I have specialized in the analysis of qualitative data. One of the issues to which I am trying to contribute, along with my colleagues in the Pacte methods group, the Ariane group, is that of data openness in an increasingly digital world.

Could you present an example of research, ideally from your own work, to illustrate the issues and tensions surrounding objectivity and neutrality in SHS/social sciences/political science?

The first research example that comes to mind to illustrate the issues and tensions surrounding objectivity and neutrality, is my thesis work in political science. "Les identités politiques des enfants de harkis. Implications citoyennes et niveaux d'intégration sociale de jeunes franco-maghrébins, entre héritage culturel et modernité". This research was a real wake-up call. It was prompted by a meeting I had with a North African Muslim woman in Grenoble, as part of my work as a student, who told me she voted for the Front National. It was the mid-1990s, I was a DEA student, and I was totally perplexed by this statement. I didn't understand how it was possible to be from the Maghreb, a Muslim, and vote for the extreme right. I was full of my own prejudices. Something was wrong, and I couldn't grasp it. This reality didn't "fit" into the explanatory models of voting that I'd learned.

The subject of my thesis grew out of this encounter and the initial work of putting the facts on the table. As a sort of necessary objectification of reality, I first needed to feed off the work of others and confront certain hypotheses: the Algerian war, repatriated French Muslims, the harkis, the camps, the difficulties of integration. Having obtained a research grant, I began a months-long survey of three regions: Rhône-Alpes, Languedoc-Roussillon and Nord-Pas-de-Calais. I took a long time. I was going to meet and interview around fifty children of Harkis.

I remember the intensity of those moments. I remember that, before making my pitch, I had forced myself to adopt a neutral, respectful, also deliberately naive attitude; to choose my words of presentation; to banish all judgment; to listen a lot. I was neither Maghrebi, nor Muslim, nor pied-noir, nor from a family with any connection to Algeria, I had no training as a historian, I was a young woman and I was starting my thesis. This naïveté, this naïve tension, probably didn't help my research at the time. However, I never felt illegitimate.

This work was a turning point. It made me understand what would never leave me: not to censor one's research desires; to remain free to work on the most complex questions a priori; to get rid of one's prejudices and not let oneself be invaded by those of others; to remain humble; to read and listen before saying; to resist contradicteurs; to trust the field.