KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY-KUMASI

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
819: PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

TOPIC:
“IS VALUE-NEUTRALITY POSSIBLE IN ARCHITECTURAL
RESEARCH; CAN THE ARCHITECT RESEARCHER TAKE SIDES”

EBENEZER TWUM-BAAH (PG2640920) - PhD1

9th JULY, 2021
INTRODUCTION

Value-free” and “value-laden” are philosophies that characterize two opposing approaches to

scientific research. At the onset, pure or natural science is presumed to be neutral from an

axiological angle, whereas in the other view point science is a human activity develop under the

direct influence of values. Professor Anthony Giddens, in one of his undergraduate text books

explained the rational of ‘public character’ in sociological research. He stated that, sociologists

should try to dissociate themselves from their research assumptions whiles undertaken research

(Giddens 2002). To have values or value-free in research is a ‘big’ question that has left many

scientists and researchers with lots of dilemmas. Many philosophers or theorists argue for value

free research whiles others are of the opined that, research cannot be completely value free.

Though all disciplines which include science are influenced by values, scientific objectivity or

subjectivity rely on the notion of value neutrality. The idea of value-neutrality was clarified by

Max Weber (1949). Value-neutrality is a concept which references the duty and obligations of

the sociologist as a researcher to overcome his/her biases in the process of conducting a research.

Value-neutrality seeks to dichotomize scientific facts from personal values and emotions in order

not to interfere with research findings and results. Max Weber stated that, sociologists should

find it necessary to be value- neutral in the analysis of their findings, though he reiterated that at

the discovery phase of research process, values cannot be overruled. The kind of problems the

social researcher decides to look into or investigate is selected on the bases of their interest and

values (Root, 1993). Thus Weber differentiates between value- freedom and value- relevance.

However, he emphasized that social science research be value-free in the analysis and

presentation phase. He expressed the view that research findings must not involve personal

values or moral sentiments. Weber (1904/1949), makes the claim that an attitude in differences
in morality has no direct relations with scientific objectivity and that if social research will be

meaningful and rational, it must be value- relevant. Scientists and positivist philosophers have

maintained that empirical studies must be devoid of personal values and must be objective with

the discovery what is real. The issue of ‘relevance to values’ in sociological research is trying to

depict philosophical meaning of specific interest in scientific study which influence how a given

research problem of empirical importance is analyzed. (Weber,1917/1949). Architecture as an art

and science is basically based on sociological research and thus necessary for its stakeholders to

detach themselves from subject of investigation. However, it is not always the case that

sociologists can abstain completely from the issues of objectivity and value- neutrality.

Science makes it clear that its practices are value free in that, it discovers facts and that science

does not discover values. It elaborates that the only value science is interested in is about

knowing the truth and that the use of scientific knowledge can and must be decided by the entire

community (Stevenson, 1989). This even raises further questions for interrogations as to how

science tries to find the ‘truth,’ since ‘truth’ is a social value which could be better investigated

under the social sciences. Though sociologists believe it is not always the case for a researcher to

abstain completely from his/her personal values and remain absolutely objectivity, natural

science sees it otherwise. The question therefore is can researcher undertake research with

his/her personal values or there should be complete objectivity? Is it all research problems that

can be investigated without some form of value bias? Can the researcher be completely value-

neutral? The question remains as to what discipline exactly is architecture? Is it art, humanities

or science? As stated by David Salomon, architecture is geared towards multi-disciplines

(Salomon, 2012). This paper will highlight the research paradigms of architecture and try to

understand whether value-neutrality is possible in architectural research. The paper will also
strive to understand issues of values in ethics, objectivity and subjectivity in philosophical

application to architectural research. The issue of what natural science research and social

science research is has becomes a subject that this paper will briefly attempt to look into so as to

understand the stance of these two broad disciplinary areas on value-neutrality and where

architecture is placed between these two. It will then looks broadly into the various philosophies

or theories on value-neutrality and relate it to architectural research. The paper will lead the

discussion on what the architect researcher’s stance could be on the issue of value-neutrality after

which final conclusions will summarize the entire discussions as to the possibility of value-

neutrality in architectural research.

ETHICS AND VALUES IN RESEARCH

Ethics involves beliefs, morals, values and principles of either large society, family or even an

individual. Ethics could also be a set of habits, beliefs and attitudes of persons, family or groups

concerned with morals that is doing what is right. Ethics informs society and individuals on how

to on how to behave and respond to issues through rights, duties obligations and responsibilities.

Thus ethical values are to apply the practices and principles of ethical standards to worldwide

view in research work. Research ethics however is a way of including moral principles into

research to guide researchers on what is wrong or right practices in research. Ethical principles

normally provide a roadmap for researchers to make the right choices on the areas to research,

the way to research and who should be involved in the research. Societal values are also the

standards which society expects individual citizens to follow in order to achieve orderliness.

These common standards or guidelines mostly have influence on individual’s ethical values

which in the long run could influence the research process. Ethics in research provides the

necessary guidelines for the conduct of responsible, credible and valid research. It also regulates
researchers, scientists and sociologists to ensure high ethical standards to protect their subjects

and research participants and to avoid misconduct in the research process. This means careful

understanding of ethics in research as well as societal values is vital for researchers (Naagarazan,

2006). Morality on the other angle is concerned with the principles and practices of moral

reflections such as what ought to be done or not to be done; what is wrong or right in undertaken

something; and what is good or bad in a given situation. Morality is centered basically on

customs and traditions whereas ethics is a reflection on moral principles (Naagarazan, 2006). In

explaining ethical principles in research, values play a key role in understanding what

researchers think as far as values are concerned.

A value is a set of principles that promotes individuals welfare. It could also serve as guidelines

towards people’s success or about what a person deems acceptable. Personal values as could be

seen as emotional beliefs in principles which an individual sees as valuable. It is associated with

experiences out of emotions or personal sentiments which guide individual’s choices or decision

making processes. The study of values is a multidisciplinary area. Different disciplines have

different concepts of how they perceive values. The classic concepts of values was introduced by

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), which perceived values as aiding to answer questions related

to people’s livelihoods. Parsons conceived values as beliefs that ease conflict between the

individual and the societal interest. Values serve as a function that enables the individuals to

work together realize collective societal desirable goals (Parsons and Shils, 1951).

Rokeach, (1973) explains values as conducts commonly referred to as ‘instrumental values’. He

further elaborates that, instrumental values are both moral values and competency values. The

moral values involves what a person believes is the right thing to do whiles the competency

values is what the individual considers as the most effective way of undertaking something.
Rokeach (1973) again explains another angle of moral values as ‘terminal value’ which has to do

with what a person intend to achieve (also known as personal values) and how they expect

society to function (as social values). Gomm (1997) revealed that individuals have their value

system made up of micro cluster of moral, competency, personal and social values that influence

the attitude of a person and their behavior (Rokeach, 1973; Hammer- sley & Gomm, 1997;

Harrison, 1999). Glen, (2000) however stated that it becomes a problem when there is conflict in

values, which sometimes may cause the individual to choose one value over the other.

Many definitions and explanations have been given on values by sociologists; however the Smith

and Schwartz, (1997) identified five features that explain the concept of values. To Smith and

Schwartz, (1997) values are beliefs, but they are not direct cold ideas or objectives. When values

are activated, they are filled with emotions and feelings. The second feature according to Smith

and Schwartz is that values are desirable goals and modes of conduct that promotes these goals.

The third is that, values transcend specific actions and situations. For instance obedience is

important in school or at the work place, in sports or with families, friends and even strangers.

Values, as the fourth feature serves as standards to guide the selection or evaluation of people’s

behavior and even to control events. The fifth feature of values according to Smith and Schwartz,

(1997) is that values are ordered by importance relative to one another. The ordered set of values

forms a system of value priorities. This means individuals and cultures could be identified by

their system of value priorities (Smith and Schwartz, 1997). Smith and Schwartz’s concept of

values is consistent with sociological view of values being an abstract concept, thou not too

abstract that they cannot influence or motivate behavior. Thus according to their assertion themes

of value research has been to assess the prediction of one’s specific behavior by knowing

something about a person’s values.

The explanation given above places emphasis on the link between values and desired goals.

Schwartz (1992) argued that values, when defined in this manner bring out three basic

requirements of human existence. These are the needs of individuals as biological organisms,

requisites of coordinated social interaction, survival and welfare needs of groups. By

understanding values, the needs of both individuals and societies can be learnt. Sociologists are

moreover concerned with how values facilitate action toward ends that enhance individual and

collective outcomes or are perceived to do so by society's members. Research on values does not

presuppose which values are best but tries to discover what people believe in and how their

beliefs motivate their behavior. A key component is how to measure values according to

Schwartz (1992), those values that people hold, how firmly they hold them, how their value

priorities compared with those of others, how the value priorities of different groups or societies

compare with one another (Schwartz 1992),

Greenbank, (2003) is explicit on the view that, whether research is value- free or value- laden

depends on the philosophical worldview and the philosophical paradigm which leads the

research. These philosophical worldviews include the ontological, epistemological, axiological

and methodological assumptions which guide the research. The type of philosophical

underpinning and the underlying paradigms thus influence the choice of research approach and

the presumed values, be it quantitative, qualitative or the mixed methods. Delbert and Salkind,

(2002) explain ontological assumptions as the assumptions about the nature of reality, which is

the way the researcher sees and study the research objects. Epistemological assumptions is about

human knowledge, it deals with what is considered as acceptable, legitimate and valid

knowledge and the way it is imparted onto others.

Axiological assumptions involve the role of values and ethics that the researcher applies to the

research process which includes how the researcher deals with his/her personal values and those

of the participants in the research to come up with credible findings (Saunders, 2016). The

axiological assumptions ask the following questions; what is the role of values in research? How

should we treat our own values when we undertake research? How should we deal with the

values of research objects or participants in the research process? And lastly how do we report

research findings? These questions are what the philosophical paradigms have divergent

positions or worldviews as to how to deal with values in research. This paper looks at different

philosophical paradigms or worldviews with their various stances on the involvement of values

in research.

THE POSITIVISM / POST-POSITIVISM VALUES

The ontological and epistemological assumption of positivism is a belief in a single

independently existing reality that can be accessed by researchers adopting an objectivist

approach to the acquisition of knowledge (Cohen et al., 2000). Researchers generally employ

'scientific' methods and therefore tend to utilize experiments, large-scale surveys and quantitative

techniques (Scott & Usher, 1999; Cohen al., 2000). Positivism involves the philosophical stance

of the natural scientist and entails working with an observable social reality to produce law-like

generalizations. The positivist emphasis is on strictly scientific empiricist method designed to

obtain pure data and facts not influenced by human interpretation or biases (Crotty 1998).

Positivists embraces objectivism. Ontologically, positivist researcher sees the world and other

social entities as real that is. physical objects and natural phenomenon are perceived as real.

Simply put, positivist researchers deal with the nature of reality. They consider external,

independent and one true reality which is universalism and the granular order of things. An
objectivist in the most extreme form believes that there is only one true social reality experienced

by all social actors. Epistemologically positivist researchers focus on discovering observable,

measurable facts and regularities, and only phenomena that can be observed and measured lead

to the production of credible and meaningful data. Thus it is characterized by pure scientific

methods. Objectivists believe social phenomena exist independently and being universal with

law-like generalization. In terms of axiological stance positivists believe that, since the social

entities and social actors exist independently of each other, positivist objectivists seek to keep

their research free of values, which they believe could bias their findings. They therefore also try

to remain detached from their own values and beliefs throughout the research process. Positivists

thus try to remain neutral and detached themselves from the research and data in order to avoid

influencing the findings. This means that a researcher who adopts the positivist stance undertake

research in a value- free manner. For Positivists this is the ideal because of measurable

quantifiable data they collect. They claim to be external to the process of data collection as there

is little that can be done to alter the substance of the data collected (Saunders, 2009).

Post-positivism shares the same characteristics with positivist assumptions and beliefs, the only

difference being that it challenges the traditional positivist’s notion of absolute truth of

knowledge and recognized that we cannot be positive about our claims of knowledge when

studying the behavior and actions of humans (Phillips & Burbules, 2000). Post-positivists are of

the philosophy that causes determine effects or outcomes, thus the knowledge that develops

through a post-positivist angle is based on careful observation and measurement of the objective

reality that exists out there in the world. Hence post- positivists also holds the view that research

must be value- neutral or value –free and that the researcher must detach him/herself from their

personal values throughout the research process (Creswell, 2014).

INTERPRETIVISM / CONSTRUCTIVISM VALUES

The school of thought in favor of an interpretivist position accept subjectivity and the idea that

research can result in different or 'multiple realities' (Pring, 2000; Cohen et al., 2000). These

researchers generally favour more qualitative approaches, although quantitative methods can

sometimes be employed from an interpretivist point of view. Interpretivists admit the influence

of their values, rather than assuming wrongly that they are able to detach their values from their

research. They are, therefore, more likely to use approaches such as unstructured interviews and

participant observation because these make no attempt to separate the researcher from the

researched in order to maintain objectivity (Saunders, 2009). Interpretivism is of the assumption

that human beings are different from physical phenomena because they create meanings.

Interpretivists study these meanings. Interpretivism is of the assumption that human beings and

their social worlds cannot be studied in the same way as physical phenomena. This implies that

social sciences research needs to be different from natural sciences research. Interpretivism

embraces subjectivity. Subjectivism deals with the assumptions of the arts and humanities and

with the assertion that social reality is derived from the perceptions and consequent actions of

social actors. They believe that ontologically there is no underlying reality to social world

beyond what people or the social actors attribute to it, thus they believe in multiple realities

rather than single reality that is same for everyone. (Burrell and Morgan 1979).

Interpretivist axiological stance is that research is value- bound. The interpretivists recognized

that their interpretation of research materials and data, and thus their own values and beliefs, play

an important role in the research process. Important to the interpretivist philosophy is that the

researcher has to adopt an empathetic stance. The issue for the interpretivist is to penetrate the

social world of the research participants and understand that world from their point of view. The
subjectivist interpretive researcher is interested in different opinions and narratives that can help

to account for different social realities of different social actors. They believe that as they

actively use these data they cannot detach themselves from their own values. They therefore

openly acknowledge and actively reflect on and question their own values as a way of radical

reflexivity and incorporate these within their research (Cunliffe, 2003).

The Constructivism Values is somehow like the interpretivism. They share similar characteristics

when it comes to their philosophical world view on role values play in research. Constructivism

or social constructivists believes that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they

live and work. Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences, thus meanings are

directed toward certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and multiple, leading the

researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into a few

categories or ideas. Knowledge is built within social or cultural context by the medium of

language. To the constructivist, knowledge is relative epistemologically, since truth is inherent

within the society and that it is the society that creates its own knowledge. The constructivists,

just as the interpretivists are also value-laden. They believe that personal values of the researcher

are integral part of the research process and ought to acknowledge their biases (Duffy and

Chenail, 2008).

CRITICAL REALISM VALUES

Critical Realism also known as direct realism or ‘naïve empirical scientific realism’ believes the

experience that goes through our senses portrays the world accurately. Hence the philosophical

underpinning of critical realism focuses on explaining what we see and experience with respect

to the structures of reality that shape the observable events (Saunders, 2009). For critical realists,

reality is the most relevant philosophical consideration. Critical realists see reality as external
and independent, but not directly accessible through our observation and knowledge of it

(Fleetwood 2005).They believe that what we experience is ‘the empirical’, or sensations, which

are some of the manifestations of the things in the real world, rather than the actual things.

Critical realism claims there are two ways through which the world could be understood. The

initial one is the sensations and events we experience. The second is the mental processing that

goes on sometime after the experience, when we ‘reason backwards’ from our experiences to the

underlying reality that might have caused them. This type of reasoning backwards is what they

call ‘retroduction’ (Reed 2005). Bhaskar (1989) was of the view that the social world could be

understood if its social structures that we are trying to understand its phenomena is clear to us.

He was of the view that we can identify what we do not see through the practical and theoretical

processes of the social sciences.

Critical realist research therefore focuses on providing an explanation for observable events by

striving to understand the causes and mechanisms through which deep social structures shape

everyday life. This stance makes critical realist research take the form of in-depth historical

analysis of social structures, and how they have changed over time (Reed 2005). Critical realists

embrace epistemological relativism with slightly subjectivist approach to knowledge (Reed

2005). Epistemological relativism recognizes that knowledge is historically situated (in other

words, it is a product of its time and is specific to it), and that social facts are social constructions

agreed on by people rather than existing independently (Bhaskar 1989). This implies that critical

realist notions of causality cannot only be reduced to statistical correlations and quantitative

methods, but that a range of methods could be adopted (Reed 2005). A critical realist’s

axiological view is that our knowledge of reality is based on social conditions and cannot be

understood independently of the social actors involved. Thus the critical realists are of the view
that the researcher ought to strive to be aware of the ways in which their socio-cultural

background and experiences could influence the research, and seek to minimize such biases to

remain objective as possible. Thus Critical realism is a value-laden research (Saunders, 2009).

VALUES OF POSTMODERNISM

Postmodernism looks at the role of language and of power relations and seek to probe into the

acceptable ways of thinking by trying to give voice to the marginalized. Postmodernists criticize

positivism and objectivism even deeper than the interpretivists, placing further emphasis on the

importance of the role of language in research. They emphasize the chaotic primacy of flux,

movement, fluidity and change. They believe that any sense of order is provisional and

foundationless, and can only be brought about through our language with its categories and

classifications (Chia 2003). They also recognize that language is always partial and inadequate.

It marginalizes, suppress and exclude portions of society and give others some undue privileges.

The postmodernist believe that there is no order to the social world other than through language

and that there is no abstract ways of determining the right or true means to describe the world. In

other words, what could be seen as right or true could be collectively decided.

Thus the collective decisions are shaped by power relations and by ideologies that dominates

particular context (Foucault 1991). The prime focus of the postmodernist research approach is to

challenge radically ways of thinking and knowing (Kilduff and Mehra 1997). It is also to give

legitimacy to the oppressed and marginalized that had been excluded from society (Chia 2003).

Postmodernism is engaged in value- constituted research. The researcher and the research are

embedded in power relations and researcher is radically reflexive in its axiological sense

(Cunliffe 2003).
THE TRANSFORMATIVE VALUES

A transformative worldview holds that research inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and

a political change agenda to confront social oppression at whatever levels it occurs (Mertens,

2010). This means the research contains an action agenda for reform that may change lives of the

participants, the institutions in which individuals work or live, and the researcher’s life.

Transformative research provides a voice for those participants, raising their consciousness or

advancing an agenda for change to improve their lives. This type of research is not value-free.

Research is value- bound as researcher together with the participants tries to advance an agenda

to give voice to those he/ she deemed are suppressed or marginalized (Creswell, 2014).

THE PRAGMATIC WORLDVIEW VALUES

Pragmatism emphasized that concepts are only relevant where they support action (Kelemen and

Rumens 2008). It strives to reconcile objectivism and subjectivism, facts and values, accurate

and rigorous knowledge and different contextualized experiences. It does this by considering

theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses and research findings not in an abstract form, but in terms

of the roles they play as instruments of thought and action, and in terms of their practical

consequences in specific contexts. Reality is of importance to pragmatists as practical effects of

ideas, and knowledge is valued for enabling actions to be carried out. The pragmatist researcher

places emphasis on the problem and strives to attain practical solutions to inform future practice.

Pragmatism is a value- driven research, is reflexive and research is initiated and sustained by

researcher’s doubt and beliefs. Pragmatist believes in multiplicity of interpreting the world and

that no single point of view can provide the entire perspective and also there are multiple

realities. This means pragmatist use methods that enable credibility, reliability and relevant data

that advance the research (Kelemen and Rumens 2008).

 AXIOLOGICAL STANCE OF NATURAL SCIENCE AS AGAINST APPLIED
(SOCIOLOGICAL) SCIENCE IN RESEARCH

AXIOLOGY OF PURE SCIENCE RESEARCH

To further understand the intellectual argument on whether research in general should be value-

neutral or value- laden, it is imperative to understand the nature of these two broad fields of

study and their axiological stance on values or ethical principles. This will then open clear path

on the argument of whether value-neutrality is possible in architectural research or not since

architecture research falls into one of these categories. From the philosophical viewpoint, value-

free and value-laden angles give a clear path between two opposing philosophical paradigms on

the axiological analysis of scientific research. (Gonzalez, 2013). However, value-neutrality and

value- bound outlooks are thus linked to ethics of science. Axiology of research involves all

kinds of values. It reflects on both ‘internal values’ of science such as the structural, linguistic,

epistemological, methodological and the ontological aspects with respect to human activities.

Axiology also deals with the ‘external values’ in the form of sociological, political, ecological,

cultural and economic aspects related to scientific research. Axiology of research reflects on

values regarding basic science as well as on goals, and outcomes of applied sciences. These

values influence the selection criteria, methodology and approach that the researcher employs in

deciding the type of research to be undertaken. (Gonzalez, 2013). Stevenson and Byerly (2000),

illustrated in their book “The Many Faces of Science” that one standard response to the way

science (pure science) relates to values is fundamentally and importantly value –neutral. It states

the difference made between theories on laws of pure science and how it has shaped mankind

and that of the applied science or the social sciences where human beings try to manipulate and

change the world. Theories according to Stevenson and Byerly (2000), are thought to be a matter
of knowledge, but values, which sociologists try to promote by practical action, are often

assumed to be a purely subjective matter and not a topic for knowledge. Stevenson, (2008) stated

that the general notion about the practice of pure science is that it is value-free in three stances.

The first stance is that science main objective is to discover facts, thus there can be no scientific

enquiry of values. The second being that, the only values science recognizes is about knowing

the truth. The third stance on science being value-free is that the application of scientific

knowledge can and ought to be decided by society. However, Stevenson, (2008) made emphatic

statement that all these three assumptions about value-free nature of science is open for debate

due to the modern day sources of funding and the application of scientific research. By this

Stevenson was trying to set the pace for intellectual debate whether science research is indeed

value-free considering how scientific research is funded and applied in this 21st century. This

notwithstanding Stevenson, (2008) made it clear that the conventional perception of the scientific

research as in the natural science is value- neutral. Pure science embraces objectivity or

objectivism as the main underlying philosophy guiding its principles. Objectivism embraces the

assumptions of the natural sciences, arguing that the social reality that is researched is external to

us and others known as social actors. This implies that, objectivism accepts realism in its

ontological stance which, in its most extreme form, sees social entities to be like physical entities

of the natural world, in so far as they exist independently of how we think of them, label them, or

even of our awareness of them. Because the interpretations and experiences of social actors do

not influence the existence of the social world, an objectivist in the most extreme form believes

that there is only one true social reality experienced by all social actors. However the social

world is made up of solid, granular and relatively unchanging ‘things’, including major social

structures into which individuals are born (Burrell and Morgan 1979). Objectivists argue that
social and physical phenomena exist independently, being universal and enduring in character.

Consequently, it makes sense to study them in the same way as a natural scientist would study

nature. Epistemologically, objectivists seek to discover the truth about the social world, through

the medium of observable, measurable facts, from which law-like generalizations can be drawn

about the universal social reality. Axiological view of the objectivist is that since the social

entities and social actors exist independently of each other, objectivists seek to keep their

research free of values, which they believe could bias their findings. They therefore also try to

remain detached from their own values and beliefs throughout the research process. Thus the

most obvious value held by all scientists is the value of knowledge and that natural scientists

seek to know the natural world as it really is (Eshleman, Cashion and Basirico 1988). Moreover,

scientists have perceived scientific knowledge as being signified by consensus especially among

scientists themselves. Through such consensus, scientists have relied on empirical, not based

presumptions. Scientists believe that perceptions of isolated individuals could not be accepted as

factual but it is only when series of individuals report similar observations that those

observations could be accepted. Scientists’ assumption that the world is external, to be

empirically inquired by the senses and in an orderly manner follows the desire for consensus

(Reiss, 1980). The value of knowledge and assumptions of externality, order and empirical

accessibility are necessary to the values of science. Intellectual honesty however is another

important value science upholds. Without these values and assumptions, there would not be any

basis for science, whether in Aristotelian or modern form (Reiss, 1980). Based on McMullin,

(1988) assertion, pure science hold other values that qualifies it as scientific, rationality,

consistency, simplicity, accuracy elegance, scope, fruitfulness theory-testing and predictability.

These values make what is seen as good science. Thomas Kuhn in addition thus consented that
such values give science stability not only in its normal stages but in its revolutionary stages in

times of paradigm shift (McMullin, 1988) He added that unchanging values and assumptions of

science cannot account for changes in scientific paradigms, meaning science has its own values

which could not be charged even when scientific paradigms change (Kuhn 1970). Research in the

natural sciences is a systematic process for developing new knowledge of the physical world that

can be shared and contested. It means that scientific research is not performed just for the sake of

the individual researcher but that its validity is determined by members of the scientific

community via the sharing and testing which is fundamental to science.

AXIOLOGY OF APPLED (SOCIOLOGICAL) SCIENCE RESEARCH

The objectivity of science itself has been questioned by some philosophers according to

Stevenson, (2008). Paul Feyerabend adopted a radically relativist position, from which he

questioned the objectivity and rationality of science. Thou scientific investigations strive to

advance knowledge, pure science tried for many years to set aside investigations into human

values before such investigations could be undertaken. Through philosophers like Adam Smith,

David Hume, Max Weber and others inquiry into human values was made possible, challenging

the conventional scientific notion of value-neutrality (Haakonsen, 1981).

Eshleman et al, (1988) stated that social science cannot as a matter of fact, distance itself from

those values necessary for the practice science and that sociologists seek to know social reality as

it really is (Eshleman, Cashion and Basirico 1988). Mill, (1843/1893) together with Locke

introduced classical utilitarianism and advocated for a liberal philosophy in social science. Mill

made known the inductive approach to social scientific methods. With regard to the principles of

scientific research, he perfected the inductive techniques of Francis Bacon as a way of solving
research methodological problems in place of the deductive logic. Mill saw syllogism as not

contributing anything new to the understanding of human knowledge. He rather sorts to

differentiate genuine knowledge from superstition. Concerning the Logic of the Moral Sciences,

Mill (1843/1893) develops the concept of an inductive experimentalism as the scientific way of

studying the various phenomena which constitute social life (Copleston, 1966). Mill considered

social science as explaining human behavior in terms of causal laws. However he cautioned

against the fatalism of full predictability. According to Mills, Social laws are hypothetical, and

statistically based generalizations that by their very nature admit exceptions. Mill asserted that

empirically confirmed instrumental knowledge about human behavior has greater predictive

tendencies when it deals with collective masses than when it concerns individual agents

(Copleston, 1966).

Mill (1865/1907) and Comte (1848/1910) argued that social scientists should limit themselves to

particular data as a factual source out of which experimentally valid laws can be derived. For

both, this is the only kind of knowledge that yields practical benefits and that society’s salvation

is contingent on such scientific knowledge. Similar to the consequentialist ethics, Mill’s

philosophy of social science is built on a dualism of means and ends. According to Mill

philosophy, Science is amoral, speaking to questions of means but without authority to dictate

ends (Copleston, 1966). However, Max Weber set the records straight as to what role value could

play in social or applied science research, unlike the objectivist stance for the pure or the natural

sciences. According to Weber (1904/1949), what value-neutrality must stand for is that

sociologists should make it their duty and responsibility to identify and acknowledge their own

personal values and endeavor to overcome their individual biases when conducting social

research. He went on further to differentiate between value-freedom and value-relevance. Weber

identified and recognized that at the problem discovery stage of the research process, personal,

moral, cultural, or other social values cannot be overlooked or eliminated completely. Which

means the kind of issues sociologists decide to investigate or probe into is determined on the

basis of their personal values that they want their research to address (Root, 1993). For this

instance Weber made it clear that social research is value- bound or value-relevant at the

problem discovery stage. However, he insisted that sociological research should remain value-

free or value-neutral at the presentation stage of the research process. Weber stressed that,

findings and its interpretation should not express any personal values or biases and that an issue

of moral indifference must not have any direct link with scientific objectivity (Weber,

1904/1949). This distinction then becomes clear on the issue of value-neutrality and value-

relevance in the discourse of values in research. Weber tried to establish that the problems of the

social science research are chosen by the value relevance of the phenomena being considered.

The understanding of the phrase ‘value relevance’ refers to the philosophical interpretation of

that particular scientific interest which determines the selection of a given phenomenon or

problems of empirical investigation.

Without the social researcher’s evaluative ideas, in terms of personal involvement through

his/her personal values there would be no principle to select the particular problem and there will

not be any meaningful knowledge of the concrete reality. Without the researcher’s conviction

regarding the significance of particular cultural facts, every attempt to analyze concrete reality

will render it effectively meaningless (Weber, 1904/1949). Unlike the natural science that seek

general laws that govern all empirical phenomena, sociological research deals with social

realities that human values considers relevant. Applied sciences or sociological research however

embraces subjectivism as a fundamental principle as against objectivism by the natural sciences.

Subjectivism accepts assumptions of the arts and humanities claiming that social reality is made

from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors or people. Ontologically,

subjectivism embraces nominalism which is also referred to as conventionalism. Nominalism,

asserts that the order and structures of social phenomena researchers investigates and the

phenomena themselves are created by the researchers and by other social actors through the

utilization of language, perceptions, conceptual categories and consequent actions. Subjective

nominalists argue that there is no underlying reality to the social world other than what people or

the social actors attribute to it and that each individual experiences and perceives reality

differently. For this reason intellectually sound to deal with multiple realities instead of the

single reality from the objectivists’ point of view (Burrell and Morgan 1979).

Subjectivists also embrace social constructionism, which are of the view that reality is

constructed through social interaction in which social actors create partially shared meanings and

realities. This implies as social interactions between actors are a continual process, social

phenomena are in a constant state of flux and revision. This means it is necessary as a researcher

to study a situation in detail, including historical, geographical and socio-cultural contexts in

order to understand what is happening or how realities are being experienced. Unlike an

objectivist researcher who seeks to discover universal facts and laws governing social behavior,

the subjectivist researcher is interested in different opinions and narratives that can help to

account for different social realities of different social actors. Subjectivists believe that as they

engage in the usage of these data it is impracticable to detach themselves from their own values.

They therefore openly acknowledge and actively reflect on, and interrogate their own values

which sometimes may be seen as radical reflexivity and thus incorporate these values within

their research (Cunliffe (2003).

 ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH-
(DOES IT FALL UNDER PURE SCIENCE OR APPLIED SCIENCE RESEARCH

To be able to reflect and understand whether architectural research is value-neutral or value-

laden, it is necessary to first understand where architecture as a field of study falls into. The

discourse on architecture as a discipline and where it belongs when it comes to research is a

matter that this paper seeks to unravel. The fundamental question that comes to mind is; does

architecture research takes the philosophy of pure science or that of the applied/ social science?

There seem to be some controversy over what architecture really is even among many architects

and scholars. Does it fall under arts, humanities or the sciences? Salomon (2012) sees

architecture as a multi-disciplinary field. According to Salomon, (2012) at some point it might be

part of art, at another humanities and another engineering or sometimes social sciences. To be

able to really understand what architecture really is, it is appropriate to look at some definitions

or what actually constitute the discipline of architecture. Etymologically, the word Architecture

was derived from. the Greek ‘arkhitekton’, which is a combination of two words, ‘arkhi’ and

‘tekton’ meaning ‘master’ and ‘builder’ respectively (Janetius, 2020). The first-century Roman

architect Marcus Vitruvius explained the characteristics of architect and architecture in his

voluminous Book ‘De Architectura’. Vitruvius stated that the architect should be equipped with

knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgment that

all work done by the other arts is put to test. This knowledge as posited by Vitruvius is the basis

of practice and theory. Vitruvius elaborated three concepts that bring out some important

elements of architecture which remains relevant till today. i) Firmitas, the design, materials and

the durability of a structure. ii) Utilitas, the purpose and function of the structure. It should serve

the intended purpose for which it is constructed. iii) Venustas is the aesthetic nature of the

construction that gives a unique position in the minds of the audience who view it; that which
makes a structure notably set apart from other constructions (Janetius 2020). Vitruvius concept

of architectural virtues ‘Utilitas ,Firmitas, Venustas’ or ‘Usefulness, Solidity Beauty’ is seen as

what a building does in terms of shaping social relations. Architects and being an architect have

been argued as always sociological in one way or the other by Robert Gutman (2010). Robert

Gutman (2010), a sociologist pointed out that “there has never been an architect who was not, in

some sense, a student and critic of society.”

Janetius, (2020) defines Architecture as the art and science of designing and building space,

structure and surroundings with aesthetic features to accomplish some specific purpose that gives

a sense of excitement to the viewers’. According to Janetius, (2020) the definition brings out

some fundamental facts that architecture is a multidisciplinary field. First, it is an art because the

architect is seen as an artist with vision for architecture. Secondly, it is a science of designing

and building space, structure or building. The science process involves disciplines such as

Mathematics, Physics and the other related sciences and scientific methodologies. Thirdly,

Janetius (2020) explains that a structure or a building could not be associated with architecture if

it does follow proper planning, diligent designing, proper materials usage, display aesthetic

values and above all, constructed within a suitable environment. On the fourth point he stressed

that, architecture is goal oriented, meaning it must be functional to serve the end user. This

involves adequate spatial organization and functional utility. Finally, the erected structure must

be aesthetically pleasant. This implies that architecture also becomes a social discipline as it

seeks the spatial needs of society in general (Janetius, 2020).

In his book ‘Aalii to Zygomorphic,’ Assasie-Oppong (2019, p.17) explained the word

‘Architectonic’ as relating to the scientific, artistic and technological study of architecture and a

constructive, systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. The key terminologies in

Assasie-Oppong (2019) definition had science, art and technology in it, with similarities to

Janetius (2020) definition of architecture. Thus the concept of what constitute the discipline of

architecture entails art, science, technology and even other social sciences which make it

multidisciplinary. This means that, due to the multidisciplinary nature, architecture could at some

instance adopt the method of natural science research. This notwithstanding, architecture

discipline is geared towards the applied science than that of the pure or natural science. This

means that, architectural research is most often directed towards the applied or the sociological

methods of research than the natural sciences. Similarly, the multidisciplinary nature of

architecture makes it more versatile in the choice of research methods and approaches.

Architecture research could also engage in the mixed method approach depending on the specific

area or problem of research. Architecture as applied scientific research has its primary focus, not

to generalize new knowledge, but the exploitation of existing knowledge to develop new

technologies and artefacts (buildings), practically for the benefit of mankind and nature (Pruzan,

2016).

VALUE-NEUTRALITY IN ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH

The concept of Value-neutrality as have been discussed above in terms of the various

philosophical paradigms and its inclination towards pure science or applied science becomes

clear that, architectural research cannot be completely value- free. Compared to many other

disciplinary and professional fields, architectural research encompasses a relatively wider

diversity of substantive fields and methodological choices. It is due to the multiplicity of

research processes and standards that underlie research in architecture and allied fields. Creswell,

(2014) explains three research approaches that can be employed in any architectural research and

the choice of any of these approached is dependent on the kind of research problem being
addressed by the architectural researcher. These research approaches are quantitative, qualitative,

and mixed methods. As a result of the multidisciplinary nature of architecture, the architectural

researcher depending on the area of research discovery may employ any of these research

approaches which will then determine the role values could play in that particular research.

Creswell, (2014) further explains how theories also serve different purposes among each of these

approaches, be it quantitative, qualitative or the mixed methods. He explains that in quantitative

research, theories provide a proposed explanation for the relationship among the variables that

are being tested by the researcher. In qualitative research, theories may mostly serve as a

perspective for the inquiry or they may be generated during the study. When it comes to mixed

methods studies, the researcher can employ them in many ways, including those associated with

quantitative and qualitative approaches (Creswell, 2014).

THE QUANTITATIVE APPROACH

If an architect researcher chooses quantitative research approach it means the researcher is

testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables. These variables, in

turn, can be measured, typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using

statistical procedures. The quantitative approach will require the researcher to either use

experimental or survey as a means of collecting data. He employs the assumptions about testing

theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative explanations,

and being able to generalize and replicate the findings In this scenario, the researcher tests a

theory by specifying narrow hypotheses and the collection of data to support or refute the

hypotheses. An experimental design is used in which attitudes are assessed both before and after

an experimental treatment. The data are collected on an instrument that measures attitudes, and

the information is analyzed using statistical procedures and hypothesis testing. Philosophically,
the quantitative architecture researcher will be adopting positivist objectivist paradigms to arrive

at objective facts based on reality. The positivist objectivist architectural researcher will have to

keep their research free of values, in order not to bias their findings. He remains detached from

his/her values and beliefs to avoid influencing the findings. This implies that when it comes to

the issue of value-neutrality, the architectural researcher employing quantitative approach is to

remain value- neutral or value-free by conventional philosophical world view (Creswell, 2014).

THE QUALITATIVE APPROACH

The architectural researcher that employs qualitative approach however tries to explore and

understand the meaning individuals or groups ascribes to social or human problems. It involves

data collection and analysis of data inductively from a particular general theme whereby the

researcher interprets the meaning of the data. Thus, qualitative research starts with data to theory

generation. Qualitative research involves the application of induction as a technique for theory

development. By the process of induction, data is collected and theory is developed as a result of

data analysis (Saunders, 2009). Qualitative architectural researcher is likely to adopt a more

interpretivist or constructivist world view philosophy. The purpose of this type of research is to

rely mostly on the participants’ views of the situation being studied. The questions become broad

and general so that the participants can construct the meaning of a situation. Generally open-

ended questions or interviews lead this kind of research.

The qualitative approach with interpretivism or constructivist position will accept subjectivity

and believe in multiple realities (Pring, 2000; Cohen et al., 2000). The individuals develop

subjective meanings of their experiences towards certain objects or things, with varied and

multiple meanings leading to complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into a few

categories or ideas (Creswell, 2014). Under qualitative, basic generation of meaning is always
social, arising in and out of interaction with a human community. The process of qualitative

research is largely inductive; the inquirer generates meaning from the data collected in the field.

In an inductive inference, known premises are used to generate untested conclusions, or to

develop a theory. Data collection is used to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and patterns

and create a conceptual framework. The qualitative researcher employs participant observation

or case study as the methods of collecting data thou there are other methods. As a result of the

interpretation of research data and findings qualitative research is value- bound or value- laden.

The qualitative researcher, based on the philosophical alignment to interpretivist or constructivist

paradigms will thus have to acknowledge the importance of their personal values and beliefs and

try to overcome their biases throughout the research process. Hence it is practically impossible

for the architectural researcher who adopts pure qualitative approach to the research to be value-

neutral in the research process.

THE MIXED METHOD APPROACH

The architectural research could also take the form of mixed method. The Mixed methods

approach involves collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, integrating the two forms of

data, and using specific designs that may involve philosophical assumptions and theoretical

frameworks. The key assumption of this form of inquiry is that the combination of qualitative

and quantitative approaches provides a more complete understanding of a research problem than

either approach alone. Mixed methods involve combining or integration of qualitative and

quantitative research and data in a research study. Mixed method approach involves collecting

multiple forms of data, such as observations and interviews (qualitative data) with traditional

surveys (Sieber, 1973). The idea about the value of multiple method or mixed methods came

with the principle that all methods had biases and weaknesses, and the collection of both
quantitative and qualitative data will neutralize the weaknesses of each form of data.

Triangulating data source as a means for seeking convergence across qualitative and quantitative

methods was created (Jick, 1979). Under this method the architect researcher could adopt the

convergent parallel mixed methods where he / she merge quantitative and qualitative data in

order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem. The researcher can also

adopt explanatory sequential mixed methods in which the researcher first conducts quantitative

research, analyzes the results and then builds on the results to explain them in more detail with

qualitative research. Exploratory sequential mixed method is another method under the mixed

method approach. In the exploratory sequential approach the researcher first begins with a

qualitative research phase and explores the views of participants. The data are then analyzed, and

the information is used to build into a second, quantitative phase. Under this method an

abductive approach could be adopted by the researcher, thou depending on the focus of the

research an inductive approach could be used here as well. In an abductive inference, known

premises are used to generate testable conclusions (Saunders, 2009). With abduction, data are

used to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and explain patterns, to generate a new or modify

an existing theory which is subsequently tested, often through additional data collection. Mixed

method approache uses both open-ended and closed-ended questions to collect data.

Philosophically mixed method research will employ pragmatic worldview, collection of both

quantitative and qualitative data sequentially in the design. The researcher bases the inquiry on

the assumption that collecting diverse types of data best provides a more complete understanding

of a research problem than either quantitative or qualitative data alone. Pragmatism is not

committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. This applies to mixed methods research

in that inquirers draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they
engage in their research. Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. In this way,

researchers are free to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet

their needs and purposes. Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. Researchers

under the mixed method approach believe that truth is what works at the time. It is not based in a

duality between reality independent of the mind or within the mind. Thus, in mixed methods

research, investigators use both quantitative and qualitative data because they work to provide

the best understanding of a research problem (Creswell, 2014). Researcher values drive the

reflexive process of inquiry, which is initiated by doubt and a sense that something is wrong or

out of place, and which re-creates belief when the problem has been resolved (Elkjaer and

Simpson 2011). Meaning researcher is value-bound or value-laden, but more reflexive. This

implies that, an architectural researcher who employs the mixed method approach which has

pragmatist philosophical world view could not be value-neutral.

CONCLUSION

The discourse about whether value-neutrality is possible in architectural research and whether

the architect can take sides solely depends on the philosophical underpinning of the researcher.

As has been discussed, the build up to this conclusion indicated that, the various philosophical

paradigms are grounded with value theories which the architect researcher cannot be detached

from. It has been established in the discussion that the architecture is a multidisciplinary field

which has its basic roots in art and science, from the various definitions. This makes it able to

adopt and adapt any of the philosophical paradigms associated with any of the quantitative,

qualitative and the mixed method approaches. It has been discussed earlier that the natural

sciences employs the positivist objective philosophy which advocates for value-neutrality or

value-free in the research process. This is what is grounded in most quantitative research
approaches. Fundamentally, researchers assuming a positivist perspective seek to eliminate the

effect of their preconceptions, personal views, biases and judgments from the research process

(Sarantakos, 1993). This position of value-neutrality by the positivist stance has been widely

criticized by many opposing philosophers as something that is not possible. Walsh, (1999)

argues that, value-neutrality is a value itself. Carr (1995) argued that those claiming value-

neutrality is possible are misleading others by presenting their research as being depersonalized

and value-free. This is assertion is also supported by MacDonald, (1993) who argued that no

matter how well designed a research; it can never be value-free. He stressed that before data is

collected, analyzed, interpreted and presented the researcher's method of sampling, experimental

design or questionnaires are likely to reflect their unconscious values (MacDonald, 1993).

Thomas, (1996) supported the argument that whilst researchers may attempt to eliminate the

effect of bias, they are unlikely to eradicate it totally and therefore the assumption of value-

neutral research is flawed.

However, what is important is that Hammersley, (1999) and his proponents are advocating that

value-neutrality ideal call in the research process. They accept that researchers are not yet

sufficiently advanced to attain value-neutrality, but contend that value-neutrality is still a

standard worth pursuing ( Hammersley, 1999). By implication, Hammersley and his supporters

are accepting that values will inevitably influence the research process. At the same time, critics

of the concept of value-neutrality still discuss the requirement of being objective in the research

process for credibility of data, its analysis and interpretation (Lather, 1986). Whilst such critics

may avoid the term 'value-neutrality' with its positivist phrase, they are undoubtedly concerned

with the effect of bias and acknowledging the influence of values in the research process. Walsh

argues further that values are likely to be so embedded in the researcher's cognitive processes
that they will inevitably influence the way they collect and interpret data (Jones, 1985; Strauss,

1987). Instead, Walsh (1999) is even proposing for the suspension of some values, whilst

allowing others to influence the research process. Moreover, even if the Architect researcher

adopts the philosophy of postmodernism, the assumption will be on the world view concerning

the role of language and power relations. Postmodernists seek to question the accepted ways of

thinking and give voice to alternative worldviews that have been marginalized, suppressed, and

silenced by dominant societal perspectives. Postmodernists deconstruct data to expose the

instabilities and absences within them. Postmodernist axiology is radically reflexive, which is

value-bound or value-constituted research. This suggests that the architecture research based on

this philosophical paradigm cannot maintain value-free or value- neutral.

Even though critical realism closely shares some resemblance with positivism in terms of its

objectivity, its main focus is on explaining what is seen and experienced in terms of the

underlying structures of reality that shape the observable events. Critical realists tend to

undertake historical analyses of changing or enduring societal and organizational structures,

using a variety of methods. The architecture critical realist researcher who decides to research

about some historical and cultural observable events related to architecture will be required

under the philosophy of critical realism to acknowledge biases, the cultural experiences and

upbringing so as to minimize to the barest level all bias and errors. This implies critical realism is

a value-laden research where the research remains objective as possible.

In a nutshell, the argument being advanced by the various philosophers and scholars makes it

clear that, value-neutrality or value-free in architectural research is not practically possible and

the architect cannot take a specific stance to be value-neutral. The architect’s research could be

geared towards value-neutrality when he adopts an objectivist positivist philosophy to guide the
research. However, any subjective interpretivist philosophy that may guide the architecture

research will inevitable make the research value-bound., meaning the architect researcher cannot

take sides in the intellectual discourse to be value-neutral. The research approach, methods of

data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings will directly involve the researcher’s

values. Hence the after reviewing various literature on the discussions of value-neutrality, it

could be concluded that, achieving complete value-neutrality in architectural research is

practically impossible and that the architect researcher cannot pick sides or a particular stance to

be value-neutral.