Article Summary: Charney’s “Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word”

Do empirical methods have a place in the scholarship of technical and professional writing? At the time this article was written (1996), an influential cadre of technical communication researchers had been calling into question not only the validity of these methods but also the moral and ethical character of those who used them. Basing their rejection of empirical methods on feminism and social constructionism, these scholars successfully forced quantitative research in technical communication out of the mainstream. With this article, Charney’s aim was to expose the logical fallacies of this movement, as he saw them, and to attempt to restore the reputation of quantitative methods. His hope was for a community of scholarship that valued qualitative and quantitative research methodologies in equal measure.

The Mischaracterization of Science

Although many critics of science merge objectivity, positivism, rationalism, and materialism (among other terms), Charney notes that these concepts can and should be separated and that many notable scholars have upheld some, but not all, of these ideas. Nevertheless, critics equate the quantitative approach with an ethos of self-interest and political status quo. By eliminating the richness of human experience from their research, empiricists are viewed as misrepresenting the true nature of the world as reducible and fully describable.

A key accusation against empiricism is that it is inherently sexist. Some scholars charge that empiricism reinforces masculine modes of knowledge and shuts out other, feminine, paths, such as intuitions, traditions, and personal experience. Charney counters that, contrarily, the pervasiveness of sexism in our culture has often been revealed through quantitative analyses and that empiricism has probably opened the door to many more people to join in the production of knowledge than were allowed to in cultures that privileged the elitist few. Because science is open and repeatable, it allows anyone to challenge it and add to it.

Indeterminacy

Critics also point to the fundamental contradiction in science that so-called “objective” methods are not really objective at all. In every data set, there is variance; in all methods, there are indeterminate sources of error. How, then, can scientists claim absolute objectivity? Charney concedes that “scientific knowledge and methods are, at least in part, socially constructed.” However, he says, this does not invalidate the central rationality of science. Science is a process, not a discrete, monolithic entity. Imperfect tools are used to continually improve our understanding and to create new tools that are less imperfect than their predecessors. Science is self-critical and self-examining—nothing stands that is shown to be false. To Charney, empiricism is what prevents a totalitarian ethic because it promotes a free and open exchange of ideas. This is in direct contrast to the characterization of science by the opposing side as an upholder of oppressive power structures.

What’s Really Objective about Objectivity?

As noted, critics often charge that science is not objective because its methods are socially constructed and inherently indeterminate. However, to philosophers of science, there is no contradiction between social construction and objectivity—it is largely a misperception of science that leads people to reject it. The social constructivist roots of science are evident in the way that scientific ideas and methods are tested and re-tested. No one individual holds absolute authority. Knowledge is arrived at through consensus via a community-based process. Most scientists do not see their own results as fixed, immutable truths, but rather as probabilities that lean in one direction or another. As a result, scientific articles are best viewed as rhetorical devices to disseminate results and attempt to convince one’s peers of the value of one’s work. This process results in ever-improving methods and knowledge claims. It is precisely this aspect of science, and not the “supposed neutrality or disinterestedness of individual scientists,” that defines objectivity in science.

How Researchers Treat Their Participants

Another critique of empiricism is the cold manner in which quantitative researchers approach their research participants. Critics equate distance with uncaringness, objectivity with amorality. Charney points out that “these characterizations smack of the worst kind of exclusionary identity politics” in that “they essentialize the researchers on the basis of their methods.” In contrast, many quantitative researchers care deeply for their research participants—deeply enough to remain distant and “cold.” This distance is what allows them to report accurately on what they observe, and what allows others to reproduce their studies and validate their results. The methods one uses cannot be used as a gauge of the moral character of those who use them. In that light, the supposed caring and compassionate nature of qualitative researchers cannot be ascertained purely through their own descriptions of their participants. Their reports are just as calculated as those of quantitative researchers—they must assume a particular “voice” in order to appeal to their readers (primarily, other qualitative researchers).

Objectivity Reinforces Collective Authority

Qualitative analyses are inherently situated in the place they were conducted. Studies that rely on qualitative methods are not generalizable to broader contexts, and the validity of these studies cannot be independently verified. Paradoxically, this lends absolute authority to the individual researchers because they are the only ones who can make claims about their own research. Although qualitative research is often viewed as democratizing and collectivist, the opposite is true. Quantitative research, conversely, relies on the community for its credence. And because quantitative research leads toward generalizability, the results of multiple studies build upon one another to form an interconnected web of understanding.

Toward a Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Neither qualitative nor quantitative methods alone are sufficient to create a robust field of scholarship in technical communication. Both reveal knowledge in their own way, and both reveal different kinds of knowledge. Charney believes that, as a field, we should embrace all methods that have the capability of leading us to our collective goals.