1) In the first part of the lessonwe discussed the differences of…

Question Answered step-by-step 1) In the first part of the lessonwe discussed the differences of… 1) In the first part of the lesson we discussed the differences of opinion on the role of bias / activism in research. Some claim that “activist research” is an oxymoron and all research, to truly be considered ‘research’, must be entirely free of all forms of bias, including political bias where you take a ‘stand’ in favor of a particular outcome or purpose of your work as a researcher (e.g. advancing the rights and movements of marginalized groups). Others, liberation psychologists and feminist researchers for example, make the argument that all research must inherently include some bias and there is no absolute ‘objectivity’ – so the most honest thing we can do is be reflexive in our work and acknowledge how our biases shape our work.  Where do you stand on this debate? Do you feel more convinced by either one of these positions or arguments? Let us know and provide some rationale for your argument as to why, or why not, “activist research” deserves to be counted as “research”.  2) In the latter half of the lesson, we talked about the difference between “studying down” and “studying up”. What is one example you can identify (try not to use one from the lesson…) of “studying down” and what would an alternative approach to research in that context look like where instead of studying “down” you could study “up”?     Social Science Psychology PSYC 2P90 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)