{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016800584368151936, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.008771929824562, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Objectivity and Subjectivity in Educational Research

This is a study in the evils of ideology. It is not possible for us to think without some kind of simplifying conceptualization, and in the political, philosophical, and methodological area this is usually an ideology rather than a theory. So this is a study of the evils of oversimplification in ideology, not of all ideologies. I shall argue that two quite different meanings of objectivity (and subjectivity) have been constantly confused, and the ideology that extols one of these, quite correctly, has been taken to condemn the other, quite irrelevantly. Errors like this are too simple to be explicit. They are inferred confusions in the ideological foundations of research, its interpretations, its applications. It is increasingly clear that the influence of ideology on methodology and of the latter on the training and behavior of researchers and on the identification and disbursement of support is staggeringly powerful. Ideology is to research what Marx suggested the economic factor was to politics and what Freud took sex to be for psychology. Gowin's, and other essays in this volume document some of this very well. Perhaps the most pathetic proof is offered by those who condemn all ideological discussions as irrelevant to or confusing for good scientific practice and proceed in the next page or