We shall examine the nature of value judgements, and how values inform the research process.

The orthodox approach distinguishes between positive and normative statements: what is and what ought to be. It argues that social sciences should strive to make judgements and social inquiry free from values.

Yet, social sciences deal with phenomena which people are interpreting and endowing with values and meanings. Social researchers deal with social relations and practices that affect and are outcomes of values. In this sense, social sciences are different from natural sciences as they have an interpretive, or hermeneutic, dimension to their activities. To argue for a value-free social research seems misplaced given that social life is about values and interpretations. Value judgements are dependent on beliefs and experiences in everyday life as well as referring to ethical principles of society. Therefore, as researchers and social actors, we do not seek to eliminate values because they inform and relate to the very reasons why we hold our beliefs, as well as the things to which we aspire. Rather, we aim to better understand how values affect the research process, and how better to incorporate them into our research.

It is important to be aware of the issues that surround the production of piece of work, and the place and influence of values within it:

• interests leading to research: interest groups (e.g., trade unions, government and corporates) contest the definitions of the research problems and questions, setting the terms of the research. In addition, research funding agencies and sponsors have vested interests in particular results.
• aims, objectives and design of project: it is suggested that a research project should be ‘relevant’, yet relevant for whom and why? Particular interests (e.g., quest for economic growth, political power, as well as truth) will inform the project’s aims and design. We can note that different cultures will have different values affecting what is interpreted as being a ‘relevant’ study. Also, this process of forming values and perceiving problems is dynamic and open to re-interpretation. Further, power relations affect project’s definitions, working concepts as well as its relevance and priority in the wider context. Rather than accepting that there exists a research problem, researchers must be critically aware of the process of its construction.
• data collection process: researcher’s own preferences (i.e., subjective understanding or emotional detachment) may determine the methods of collecting data. As well, there are issues of protecting social actors’ confidentiality and privacy. Sponsors and funding agencies may also stipulate which groups of social actors to investigate and by what means; e.g., selecting middle class groups because of their political and financial power.
• interpretation of the data: findings that are not in accordance with sponsor and agency’s prejudices and interests may be dismissed as being invalid, re-interpreted by selecting appropriate sections, or simply ignored; e.g., a study of the environmental impact of a new factory.
• the use of made of the research findings: the results of the research may be used for political or commercial purposes at odds with the research team, or for use not intended nor anticipated by it; e.g., studies on poverty used to reduce welfare assistance.

There are three key positions: Weber’s value-free sociology, Critical Theory and feminism.

According to his value-free methodology, Weber argued that that despite social scientists’ goal being an understanding of the subjective meanings that people attribute to their world, social science can be objective. While it was logically impossible for the social sciences to establish in a scientific manner the truth of ideals (e.g., justice, truth, aesthetics, etc) which people believe in, social sciences allow for the determination of the suitability of a given range of means for the attainment of specified ends. In this way, the social scientist aims to provide a cost-benefit analysis of different means (i.e., practices and policies) but refrains from making statements about the desirability of people’s goals and ends – this is the task reserved for philosophers and social thinkers.

Weber also argued that after having committed to a particular area of research (e.g., organisation of work) for personal and vested interests (e.g., greater democracy at work), the social scientist can pursue its investigation in an objective manner. For Weber, values only entered into the research at the problem selection stage.

However, the critics point out that the process of gathering ‘facts’ is not neutral. Instead, the researcher plays a significant role in constructing ‘facts’, and indeed observations are theory-laden (e.g., ‘efficient’ work organisation) reflecting the interests of a particular vested group.

Critical Theory argues that the strive towards ‘objectivism’ come from bracketing the hermeneutic, or interpretative, dimension of the research process, thus failing to see the historical influences upon our consciousness. Critical theorists point that truth is ideological (i.e., in the interest of the bourgeoisie), and that the working class suffer from false consciousness. The aim of research and theory is to reveal to the masses the true reality. From this, the oppressed class will be able to properly identify their needs, and mobilise their political resources to bring this about.

Feminists do not seek to eliminate value judgements or to become detached from the research field, but instead seek to understand women’s place and experiences as a central part of the social research’s process and product. Feminist research focuses on women’s experiences, placing the research in the wider context of the social world. It is committed to improving women’s position with society, and overcoming women’s oppression. Thus, values explicitly inform the research design, process and product.

Critical theorists and feminists argue that Weber’s separation of means from ends is not sustainable. ‘Facts’ are not collected, but produced, reflecting and perpetuating unequal power relations that already exists within society. To follow Weber would condemn social research to simply as a technical science of efficiency, unable to morally challenge individual and society.

Ethics is concerned with the attempt to formulate codes and principles of moral behaviour. Here, the ethical inquiry focuses on the reasons for action in the conduct of social research. Ethical decisions arises not in terms of expediency, advantageous, efficiency, but in relation to what is morally right or wrong – i.e., principles. There are two key approaches.

First, deontological approaches state that ethical judgements in social research should follow a set of principles that guide the conduct of research itself. For example, the principle of ‘informed consent’ refers to a freely given agreement by the researched to become a subject of the research process. Second, consequentialism assesses the situation, and evaluate the consequences of the researcher’s actions. For example, whether to break interviewee’s right to confidentiality and anonymity may depend on what is revealed during the interview – if it has seriously broken the law, then the researcher may be obliged to report this to the police.

Professional ethics provides a code of conduct, detailing acceptable and intolerable research practices, so that sexism and racism are considered to be wrong, and not acceptable in the research design and implementation. Professional ethics moves between the two extremes of rigidity and flexibility.

There is a debate on whether the end (e.g., political cause) justifies the means (intolerable research methods). Irrespective of the ends, nothing can justify dangerous and ethically dubious means (flagrant abuse of the right to privacy).

The examination of values and ethics is necessary in order to provide justifications for the systematic and valid social research. The aim is not to eliminate values, for this is impossible. Rather, how values and ethics form a part of the research practice itself, and to critically assess the nature of the links between values, ethics and research.