logo

Unit 5 Objectivity filter

Learning outcomes

By the end of this unit you should:

  • understand the necessity for research in computer science to avoid appearing subjective
  • know the three subcategories of objectivity errors
  • have practised using the objectivity filter
  • be ready to use the objectivity filter on your draft papers
Rubik

Activity 1 Introduction to the objectivity filter

Read.

Scientistics, particuarly computer scientists, strive to write research articles that are objective. Although the goal of objectivity may not be fully realized, it is possible to draft research articles that appear objective. The appearance of objectivity is obtained by avoiding any direct references to subjective items. When you check your draft using the accuracy filter, there are three error types to look out for. Each of the error types are listed below.

  1. Focus on people and feelings rather than things and ideas
  2. Emotive wording
  3. Excessive personalization

Activity 2 Focus on people and feelings rather than things and ideas

Read.

  • Corpus example: I will describe the results of our research in section 2.

The corpus example uses the first person pronoun I and the possessive adjective our. This directs attention to the people involved in the research rather than the research itself. This is in contrast to the expectations of the community of practice that focus on things and ideas rather than people and feelings. Research in the many fields within the humanities and social sciences has embraced the use of first person pronouns, we and I, and no longer eschews active voice in favour of passive voice. However, research in many applied and pure science domains continues to prefer research articles that are appear “objective” in terms of language usage. The corpus example can be depersonalized and written using just five words as follows:

Section 2 describes the results.

More corpus examples of inappropriate use

  1. ...you should consider a lifting method...
  2. I can understand intuitively the state of ...
  3. I examine the state to ... myself in this paper
  4. ...the user slides the photo with yourfinger,

Suggested revisions

In each case ambiguous words are replaced with words that are clearer.

  1. a lifting method should be considered...
  2. The state of ... can be understood intuitively
  3. In this paper, the state to ... is examined.
  4. ...users slide photos with theirfingertip,

Activity 3 Emotive wording

Read.

  • Corpus example: We are pleased to announce that the results show XXX.

In the same vein as the previous example, this corpus example does not adhere to disciplinary expectations of “objectivity”. The use of the first-person plural pronoun we in some scientific domains may be acceptable, but the adjective pleased expresses happiness and, as such, focuses on feelings rather than ideas. The author might have been attempting to frame the result announcement in a manner so as to direct the reader to view the results positively. The sentence can be revised by omitted the emotive sentence stem as shown below:

Results show XXX.

Activity 4 Excessive personalization

Read.

  • Corpus example: ...such as services to your XXX, to your XXX, and to XXX.

Disciplinary expectations vary among pure and applied sciences, but excessive personalization, such as the overuse of personal pronouns or possessive adjectives is likely to convey the impressive that the research article is not “objective” enough. This “objectivity” refers to the appearance of objectivity through depersonalization of the research narrative. Hyland (2002b) notes that teachers of writing to students with English as an additional language, tend to direct them to depersonalize texts by removing references to themselves from their texts. There is a continuum of usage of first-person I in scientific and academic writing. Tang and John (1992) identified six functions realized by the use of first-person I, namely: representative, guide, architect, recounter, opinion holder and originator. The opinion holder function seems at odds to the desire to present factual information objectively. However, Hyland (2002a) found that expert writers used I when promoting their own work which was in direct contrast to novice writers who used I to, for example, describe the organization of their research article. The strongest authorial presences created using first person pronouns are when elaborating arguments and stating results or claims (Hyland, 2002a). Perhaps, well-established authors attempt to appeal to their own authority to persuade readers of the validity of their work. However, this is a technique that few would advise novice writers to attempt.

The corpus example can be revised as shown in a. This in turn can be made more concise by removing the repeated word, to. The final version is shown in b.

  1. ...such as services to XXX, to XXX, and to XXX.
  2. ...such as services to XXX, XXX, and XXX.

Review

Make sure that you check your writing for the following types of errors:

  1. focus on people and feelings rather than things and ideas
  2. emotive wording
  3. excessive personalization