Self-Reliance, Researcher Bias, and African Development

Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Meaning in Research

Assumptions about truth can be dangerous in any research because they can lead to bias that shapes the research process: a researcher may suffer from confirmation bias, seeking only the type of answers that align with his assumptions (Nickerson, 1998). Objectivity and subjectivity are therefore important to consider when conducting research, just as deriving the correct interpretation of the meaning of collected data is important. Objectivity, subjectivity, and meaning are interconnected, as both objectivity and subjectivity will feed into how meaning is understood. Every person is capable of being both objective and of having a subjective experience at the same time. Being mindful of how one's subjective experience can shape one's perspective is critical to being as objective as possible.

When researchers design and conduct research, they must be mindful about what they perceive the truth to be — because there is an objective truth and a subjective truth, and both have to be considered. The objective truth is what one observes: it is awareness of the facts as they are, without interpreting them or applying a judgment to them; it is simply a statement of the facts. The subjective truth is how one experiences those facts — how one interprets them. It is out of that interpretation that meaning is derived. However, one can strive to make one's interpretation as objective as possible by describing the theoretical lens through which one is looking. The researcher can describe the process by which the data is analyzed and defined. This helps the research take on a more objective character and quality. The more that one uses different data sources, too, the more one can make the study more credible and trustworthy — this is what is meant by triangulating data: using two or more sources of information instead of collecting all the data from one source, which could lead to a highly biased presentation of meaning.

Managing Researcher Bias and Bracketing Assumptions

Potential concerns for this study consist of the risk of researcher bias and confirmation bias intruding upon the methodology. Removing researcher bias and preventing confirmation bias are critical for maintaining the integrity of the study and for ensuring that the study has credibility and trustworthiness. Data triangulation can help to achieve this aim, but it is also important for the researcher to state upfront what he expects to find so that he can "bracket out" his bias, as recommended by Johnston, Wallis, Oprescu, and Gray (2017). By stating expectations, beliefs, and assumptions upfront, the researcher is able to bracket out potential bias and remove it from the approach to collecting data as objectively as possible. The intention is not to find data that proves a hypothesis but rather to let data emerge organically to paint a picture that can then be studied and interpreted using the theoretical model employed. Bracketing out bias can be accomplished "by identifying and suspending preconceptions and being open to the data" (Smith & McSweeney, 2017, p. 292). This will allow the researcher to resist inserting himself into the data collection and analysis process, and simply allow the threads to appear as they do, following and analyzing them according to the criteria stipulated in the methodology.

Being upfront about one's subjective assumptions can also help the actual meaning of facts to emerge through the data collection process. One can approach a subject with a pre-existing sense of what the meaning of things is — so it is important for the researcher to state those ideas upfront and to allow the reader to understand the researcher's own background and perspective. This gives the reader the opportunity to see that the researcher already has some sense of the meaning of events in mind, and that he aims to build on that meaning or revise it as necessitated by the facts encountered.

Research Design and Case Study Focus

As Moyo (2009) shows, the state of Africa today is such that aid promised to and given to the continent is simply not an effective source of strength and stability: "sub-Saharan Africa remains the poorest region in the world" (p. 5). This research design will take the form of a case study to explore the role of self-reliance in bringing stability to African nations. Self-reliance will be defined by countries' independent and assertive policies to develop on their own merit, resources, and capacity. The focus of the study will be on how national policy supports or is antithetical to traditional practices — thus it will assume a national level of analysis, examining how nations support or do not support informal forms of association as well as customary practices among local self-groups and religious institutions. Insights gained from previous work include the role of literacy as an important factor in social and economic development.

My role as a researcher is to locate the meaning of the information I collect by analyzing it objectively and discussing my own subjective experience of the information so as to be fair to my reader. The reader will want to know where I am coming from and what perspective I bring, and so I must be able to describe that — based on the theories I apply and based on my own knowledge of conditions in Africa. I will ask questions such as why countries like the Central African Republic are not more developed and how self-resilience, and the country's attitude toward self-resilience, plays a part. Mulumba and Namuggala (2014) state that "women's benefit is largely hinged on their self-resilience and determination" (p. 27). Wang, Li, Hu, and Li (2011) note that "money stimulates competition, power promotes symbiosis, and spirit induces self-resilience" (p. 17). It will be my task to identify the spirit in these countries by examining what other scholars have written and exploring the topic through the eyes of African artists, leaders, speakers, and scholars. The research question this study will seek to answer is: how is self-resilience factoring into the situation in Africa today, and how are national governments facilitating or failing to facilitate the emergence of self-resilience among African men and women?

References

Johnston, C. M., Wallis, M., Oprescu, F. I., & Gray, M. (2017). Methodological considerations related to nurse researchers using their own experience of a phenomenon within phenomenology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(3), 574–584.

King, E. M., & Hill, M. (1997). Women's education in developing countries: Barriers, benefits and policies. World Bank Publications.

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. Macmillan.

Mulumba, D., & Namuggala, V. F. (2014). War experiences and gendered responses to post-conflict reintegration: The case of Lira district in northern Uganda. In Selected themes in African political studies (pp. 25–38). Springer.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

Radelet, S. (2016). The great surge: The ascent of the developing world. Simon & Schuster.

Smith, P. L., & McSweeney, J. (2017). Organizational perspectives of nurse executives in 15 hospitals on the impact and effectiveness of rapid response teams. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 43(6), 289–298.

Wang, R., Li, F., Hu, D., & Li, B. L. (2011). Understanding eco-complexity: Social-economic-natural complex ecosystem approach. Ecological Complexity, 8(1), 15–29.