Looking specifically from a historical perspective - truth can never be objective. It is subjective to the evidence that is looked at and the questions that are asked of the evidence.
Clear identification of the sources used, a willingness to have the account or narrative critiqued, corroboration of different sources and information about the author and the process would convince me of an objective historical process and the acceptance that the narrative created was a version or construct of the past - a version of truth.
In this sense - evidence is largely written. Relics, artefacts, buildings and objects can be evidence but the physical world, oral histories or the spoken word tend not to be.
Post-modernist critique of historical narratives reject this objective process and therefore reject narratives as historical truths, and instead claim that narratives are fictional or metaphorical.
(Very interesting perspective from History as a discipline, Katy!)
ReplyDeleteHi Katy,
ReplyDeleteWhat jumped out at me immediately was the statement under "Traditional qualitative research assumes(a) knowledge is not objective Truth, but is produced intersubjectively. I have often wrestled with the notion of Truth may or may not be. Does it change in different circumstances?
In the book, Gandhi, the Man, he is quoted thusly, "Truth resides in every human heart and one has to search for it there...what may appear as truth to one person will often appear as untruth to another..." "What can make the truth impure or unethical is a person's self-interest. Do researchers ever express self-interest in their work? How may it manifest itself?
So whatever research methodology we choose to pursue, it is my assumption that we need to be ethical and truthful in our strategies for data collection and the conclusions we reach.
Truly this week has been a struggle for me with all the various and sometimes conflicting ideas I have read. But interesting!