The Influence of Positionality

Can we ever truly be unbiased? This week’s reading asked us to explore this notion. I believe that a person cannot separate their own positionality from an area of study. To arrive at complete objectivity in science is impossible. A person’s worldview will always influence their perspective. In the area of scientific research, this inescapability of perspective is what influences the areas we choose to study and the reasons we study them. As well, any analysis of results is subjected to the person’s viewpoint. The person can take measures to ensure they remain as objective as possible, but there will always be an element of subjectivity in any scientific finding. In today’s society, I think we believe that science has the ultimate objective stance and we do not consider the positionality of the scientists.

In the group discussion about the articles, we talked about the motivation to conduct science. I argued that in today’s society, we have lost the curiosity factor in science. It seems as if today, in western societies, people are only interested in science if there is a financial benefit. I’m not sure if we study the natural world simply to understand it better. For example, most geological studies conducted in Canada today are in the area of resource development. When scientists need funding in order to undertake a study, often they have to prove that there will be a benefit to the group putting up the money.

I would also like to talk about the role of standpoint. As I am more of a social science person, I have a cool example of standpoint theory being used in a sociology study. A sociologist was interested in gang culture. Rather than try to observe and write about Canadian biker gangs as an outsider, this researcher was granted access to the gang as member. This gave him an outsider-insider perspective and made for a more compelling look at gangs in Canada. Although he was unable to completely shake his outsider perspectives, his role as one of the gang members was as close to “going native” as a researcher can do. This gave the closest unbiased account as possible. Since we can never truly be unbiased in our position, the insider-outsider perspective of standpoint theory is as close as we can get to arriving at an objective understanding.

Science and the search for the truth

In this week’s article On fact and fraud: Cautionary tales from the front lines of science, Goodstein asks the reader to consider the value we place on science given the numerous examples of fraud. The main point I took from this article is the danger that exists amongst lay people accepting the word of scientists without any other information. In our society, we place science on a pedestal and accept the word of science as the ultimate truth. But as Goodstein shows us, this is often not the case. He has shown the reader a selection of scientific cases that were proven to be invalid but the results of these experiments already had an effect on ordinary people. Lay people don’t have the opportunity or often the courage to question the findings of science and we are often forced to accept the word of scientists as being absolute. The scientists mentioned in the article may have had good intentions and their fault was that they already knew what they wanted their experiment to say before it even started. At the same time, we have to consider the word of scientists who do not have good intentions and allow their position of esteem to be purchased. The best example of this is scientists today that deny climate change in the face of undeniable evidence. I believe these scientists are using their position and the trust people have placed on their words to manipulate the public and support big business. As University of Saskatchewan Professor Paul Orlowski points out, these are the same scientists who were denying the link between smoking and cancer only a generation before. From the examples provided by Goodstein and the continuing scientific debate on climate change, we can see that the findings of science are often not an absolute truth.

The Goodstein article also reminded me of another issue in science; the validation of research under unethical means. As a history guy, I was thinking about human experimentation conducted by the Nazi’s during the Holocaust. To what extent should we use any Nazi research? If the findings are valid, but were gathered during unethical means, can we use them as scientific knowledge?

 

Math is a Wonderfull thing

After completing Math B30 in high school, I swore I would never take another math class in my life. Math has always been a struggle for me and I just could not grasp the concepts. The way I learn and know information has always been in an analytical way. This way of knowing explains why I always excelled in Social Studies and English classes. I could never just accept a math formula or equation as being “just the way it is”. I remember giving math teachers a hard time as I would always ask why a concept in math is the way it is. They would always tell me it just is and please learn the process. For a learner like me, I would have benefited from the progressive math instruction style. Rather than leaving math as an arbitrary process, progressive math instruction helps show students why a concept in math is the way it is. This approach to math instruction should help students who have struggled in the drill and practice method.

In relation to my past math struggles, I found it strange that I have been providing math help at my co-op school this year. But here is the great part; I am actually a pretty good math teacher! I think my skill in helping students learn math can be attributed to my past math struggles. Now as the teacher, I have to learn and understand the math for myself as I am helping a student understand it. It is beneficial to the student to be learning the math concept alongside the teacher. As I am coming to an understanding, I am explaining my process for knowing the math concept. The student is able to follow my process and then form their own understanding.