Objectivity

In the last week I've come across different references to the idea of "objectivity" in social science research. Not that I haven't thought about it before, but now I'm thinking about it again.....First, I was listening to a researcher talk about segregation in a midwestern city.  Her research started with a photograph taken in the 1970s of young teens on a porch. The group of about 15 consisted of black boys and white girls. The researcher was one of those in the photograph and her goal was to tell the story of racial divides by tracing the life trajectories of those youths.  It was an interesting approach and story.  Inevitably the question was asked about her "objectivity" in the research, since she was part of the group.  In the following discussion the term "strong objectivity" was used.  This idea, advanced by Sandra Harding, argues that true objectivity (or neutrality) does not exist.  Instead, recognizing our own role in the research actually strengthens, rather than weakens, concepts of objectivity.  By overtly recognizing our own biases in the research process can we come closer to "reality."  Bringing biases and background to the front of the research process maximizes objectivity.

With my mind primed for thinking about "objectivity" I listened to another scholar discuss experiences of the new South migration of blacks in the US.  She focused, for this talk, on their perceptions of racism in the North and South. Here the term "objective reality" came up in questions. How did her subjects perceptions compare to reality?  One of her answers, which I liked, was that "reality" was sometimes less important than perceptions in shaping behavior (actually it is probably more often important....)  So, objective reality exists whether you believe or not...does that imply some underlying "true" facts?  Of course, the cultural relativists would say no, that reality is different depending on your standpoint (Harding is a standpoint theorist).  Can we reconcile these ideas?