Summary
Why the term Activist Researcher is an Oxymoron
When we think of research, we usually think of an investigation done systematically to find out something objectively to help unravel facts and truth. When we say the word activist researcher, we almost introduce an oxymoron to our conersation. Is it possible to be a researcher and an activist at the same time? While this very concept may be up for debate, in my opinion, the two cannot exist simultaneously.
Can one be a researcher? Yes. Can someone be an activist? Yes. Combine both of them together at the same time? No. We are taking an objective practice with an inherently unobjective practice that involves more complexities of the human psyche such as morals and values and what one person deems right. Is there moral objectiveness? Yes and no. Yes to the extent that there usually is a “right” and a “wrong” in given situations, however what that may end up looking like for each individual can be very different. For instance, a person should not steal from a store. This is usually a generally correct statement and one that has a general moral righteousness. However, if we take a person that cannot provide for their family and out of desperation, decides to steal food, does our view of the morally correct element change? After all, the store is a part of a billion dollar cooporation, the person is down on their luck because they got fired from a job that was based on a decision that was based on racial discrimination, and they have children at home that need the rent paid and food in their bellies.
While some situations do legitimately require activism, situations that involve research require just that. I believe an activist can utilize research to their own benefit, but it must be pulled from information that was done in a way that reduces to the amount of biases, which is one of the objectives of research.
An activist can have personal investment in what they are doing, and this investment is an essential part of the human psyche, but we must be aware of our intentions behind what we are doing. Can an activist researcher be apart of structural violence? Absolutely. While an Activist Researcher may think they are doing what is right, they may be unaware of the unlying sources that motivate their movement.
Taking a step back from an issue gives us the most objective view of a problem, just like in every day life, and applies to this topic as well. While we cannot completely seperate our human-ness from our research, we can certainly try to minimize it.
References;
Brydon-Miller, Mary. Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues. 53(4). Winter 1997. pp. 657-666.
Hello, I like the amount of thought that you have put into this blog post, but I must disagree with on the idea that activism and research cannot coexist. Activism in its most basic definition is action taken to achieve a result. I fail to see how this cannot coexist with research since research aims to answer questions. If we see a social problem that has many nuances, we can still research to find a solution. I do believe that a researcher must always remove bias from their research but that does not mean they cannot ask a question that is formed to solve an issue they see. Their responsibility lies in reporting the research as it happened whether or not it helps their cause or not. The fear of being wrong should not be a deterrent from seeking the answer. I believe there should be more research around these activist topics. Now where I could see activism and research clashing is when people misrepresent data or they use psychological understanding to manipulate people, but that falls more into politics and advertising than it does research.