Objectivity in Educational Research
Abstract
Objectivity is one of the most cherished ideals of the educational research community. In fact, it is so important that if our work is accused of being subjective, its status as a source of knowledge sinks slowly into the horizon like a setting sun. Yet, though we use the term objective with ease in our conversations and in our literature, its meaning is not particularly clear, nor, I will argue, are the consequences of the tacit, almost unexamined assumptions upon which it rests. When we speak of being objective, just what do we mean? One thing, apparently, is that we have taken pains to try to diminish or eliminate bias. To be objective or to do an objective study is to be or do something that is not primarily about ourselves, but about the world itself. Objectivity means in some contexts being fair, open to all sides of the argument. In other contexts, objectivity refers to a method or procedure through which we acquire information; an objective test is an example of such a procedure. In common discourse, to be objective or to have an objective view is to see things the way they are. When we conceptualize objectivity, we ineluctably imply its opposite, subjectivity, and between the two there is no doubt about which one comes out on top. We want to be objective in our views, objective in our methods, and above all, to have objective knowledge. To use the vernacular, we want to see and to tell it like it is.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery
Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411920600989412 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
- Authors
- Eisner, E.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Eisner, Elliot
- Venue
- Curriculum Inquiry
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-15
- ISSN
- 0362-6784 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-873X
- OpenAlex
- W2021042807
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 10.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Curriculum Inquiry (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational theories and practices
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Education, Philosophy, and Society
- Keywords
- objectivity, subjectivity, bias, scientific objectivity, epistemology of educational research, knowledge claims
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review