What are the best research philosophies in academia?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: What are the best research philosophies in academia?
Position1 of 6›: Critical Realism
Argument‹2 of 2: Critical realism strives for objectivity

Critical realism is a research philosophy which acknowledges the inherent bias in human observations of the world. This realisation that all humans are biased is used to create greater objectivity in research.

The argument

Critical realists believe that there is a 'real world' which exists independent of the human view because the human view will always be subjective, or biased. "[O]ur understanding of this world is inevitably a construction from our own perspectives and standpoint." Critical realism acknowledges the struggle to achieve objectivity in research. This philosophy of research is especially useful for achieving objectivity because the researcher understands their bias. They will research the topic from various perspectives in order to get a more well-rounded view of the field. This allows researchers to gain a broad view of the field without being burdened by their own preconceptions and biases, leading to the development of more credible theories and arguments. Critical realism argues that the world is divided into what is real and what is observable. The real-world lies beyond what humans can observe because what we see is always an interpretation of what is real. To acknowledge this distinction allows the researcher to acknowledge their bias and work around it. They know to look for multiple perspectives which will shed light on all sides of the topic to create a more objective analysis.

Premises

[P1]Critical realism holds that a real world exists independently of our inevitably subjective, biased human perspective, distinguishing what is real from what is merely observable. [P2] By acknowledging their own bias, critical-realist researchers deliberately examine a topic from multiple perspectives, producing broader, more objective analyses and more credible theories. [C] Because it confronts bias and strives for objectivity, critical realism is the best research philosophy.

Counter-arguments

Critics argue that the objectivity that critical realism aims to offer is overstated. Critical realism exaggerates when it claims that it is impossible for humans to view reality objectively. Opponents of critical realism argue that there are many "empirically observable relatively enduring regularities in the social world." They point out that it would be impossible for humans to navigate the world if they were completely unable to view objective reality.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise garbles the position it defends: critical realism distinguishes the real, the actual and the empirical, which is a claim about causal structures existing whether or not they are activated or observed — not the simpler claim that our view is biased, which almost every research philosophy accepts. [Rejecting P2] Acknowledging bias and consulting several perspectives is a methodological commonplace rather than a feature of this philosophy, and interpretivists, positivists and pragmatists all have their own procedures for it — so the premises describe good practice generally and do not distinguish critical realism, still less establish it as the best.