Objectivity, criticism and dialogue

This article critically evaluates the idea that the division between objectivity and subjectivity can illuminate the relationship between social scientific and lay perspectives on the social world. It examines a conceptualization which associates objectivity with a grasp of the features of the object of investigation, and associates subjectivity with the potential for lay actors to suffer from misapprehensions. The article explores the way in which this division is used in critical social science such that the critical perspective of the sociologist is seen as objective whereas the perspectives of lay actors are seen as subjective and always potentially problematic. The article explores Michael Burawoy’s analysis of objectivity and subjectivity within the context of a critical social scientific appraisal of the labour process. I question Burawoy’s approach, arguing that a meaningful dialogue between sociologists and lay actors can only be achieved if the objectivity of social scientific accounts is not assumed.