Literature Review of “BECKER Whose side are we on”
It is more or less clear that if the researchers do not take the one side for justifying the issue, then the concluding remarks could not be submitted by him and then it will be very difficult to draw the concluding remarks. There are some issues of biasness regarding taking the side of whom. From ethical point of view, it is very much clear that researchers will take the side on the basis of ethical dimension that means he or she will take side of legal law, legal right as he can compare between what is right or wrong. Now back to the Becker point of view to his article, it is found that the sociologist sometimes has to face the choice of adoption of whose side. Now the question is arise is the perspective of taking one side undermine the validity of his research work or not, even the question may arise about the value of the research in the society. So, there are so many elements of ‘BECKER Whose side are we on?’
It is obviously true and fact that that the researcher cannot avoid taking sides, just to draw a concluding remarks he or she has to take a side, and for this reason he or she will be accused that it has created biasness as he or she has taken the sides. So, we have to know about the bias. Bias is actually the conflict issue that is presented as contingent aspect of the situation which will be researched by the researcher and in which the sociologist work is involved rather than the considering the feature of the work. There are so many chaos and disorders in the society. When the researchers work on it, then they have to study lot. From the very beginning of the issue, they tried to be neutral, but when the research is going on for a number of times and thought comes on mind to draw a concluding remarks then they have to take a side. And it has already been said that they actually come to the concluding remarks by observing what is right or wrong that is all about ethical issue. Afterwards the issue of biasness is come forward as he or she has taken the side.
Now come to the Becker study about the biasness thought primarily it has been described as well as focused on the issue of accusations of bias by Becker. But it did not give the priority on the bias itself. Whatever, there is a logical consequences of taking the accusation of bias because it demonstrates the conditions under which such accusations arise. To justify accusation of bias two scenarios can be identified for the logical consequences. And these are the political and the non-political issue. For considering the political and non-political issue, the factor prescribed by Becker Credibility Hierarchy comes forward. By the context of credibility hierarchy the assumption of political party and non-political are totally different. There is a political power of political party. On the other hand there is a social power of the non-political party. Non-political partly means the community of the society those who are involved with social work and those are defined from the sociologist point of view as the moral contribution to the society. On the other hand, the political party works for the society that means for the welfare as well as the development of the society as well as for the country. But here the accusation of bias is context for the both the party. Now come to the researches thinking. Whose side he is actually taking, is it the political party or non-political party. It is not very easy to take the side of one within a short time. By the context of accusation of bias, it is redeemed that the activities of political party sometimes stand them to the field to accusation just because of their misapplication of activities that is not accepted by the general people. In that case, when the researchers started to research on the particular issue on accusation of bias, then he or she has to take the side of one to set a concluding remark. And this is very natural as it has already been said that there is no option for the researcher to avoid the side of one. But this is not necessary that the researcher put their accusation of bias to the political party. If the scenario will be happened any one of the community that is beyond the ethical principles, or create social disorder, then he or she research on it and if it is found the particular community has the occurrence of accusation of bias, then the researcher must take his side against the particular community as he or she has no option to avoid the side.
Moreover, there is a higher level of uncontested credibility hierarchy in response to the top of an organization or community as the both entity is considered as the aspect of assumption to know best. There is also an issue of superordinate and subordinate in the top of the organization or community assumption. The subordinate of an organization or a community are responsible for his job duties and responsibilities as he has been privately appointed to be reliable to his job out of the contradict views and it is very natural that they are not coherently politically mobilized and their views those actually they belong are not publicized. In this situation, the fact of accusations of researcher bias are likely to come from superordinate because the superordinate has to power as the position of top and the option of misuse this power and this misuse will arise only when the social scientist does not conform to official views. If we consider the serious issue of dissident perspectives of the clarification of some subordinates, then it may be highlighted that the subordinates are officially bound to do job. Again back to the political situation the political party has the tendency to misuse the political power in response to the benefit of their self-interest that arise more open conflict of views. The view point of the conflicts may be liked up with subordinates if they are intentionally doing the favor of the superordinate. But the subordinates are being mobilized against superordinate, and their intention is promoted, then the view of conflict comes forward. As a result, there is no space of credibility hierarchy. In that case, the accusations of bias may arise from either or both sides, like subordinates or superordinate depending on the situation matter of the accusation of bias as per the interpretation of the sociologist adopts.
There is an implication regarding the bias that is considering the other kinds of deviance bias factor carries a lot of feature where the important subject is involved and this is behavior. The behavior may carry the resolution of bias or the accusation of bias. The resolution of accusation of bias may differ person to person behavior. It is an aspect of social definition is that bias is the feature of different interrelated behavior. In this behavior, accusation of bias is the product of the behavioral situation where the work of the sociologist is involved. It is not assumed that the social research that is done with the social behavior and it is always results to the defective or offensive or culpable, but sometimes it has the acceptance to the society if it has the ethical judgment to the social point of view. On the other hand, from the social point or political point of view, the accusation of bias may take place in the matter of powerful or powerless. Both the situation could be researching subject for the researcher. As like the background of the superordinate’s and subordinates the situation of powerful and powerless is similar. But the fact is, powerful person has the tendency to misuse the power for his own interest and this the social bias and the question of accusation of bias that may be researched and the researcher find a concluding remarks if it is found any means of illegal application or misuse of power. Then the researcher is only on the side of the powerless.
Now back to the Becker point of view to his article, it is found that the sociologist sometimes has to face the choice of adoption of whose side. This statement from BECKER Whose Side Are We On could be described the relationship between decision views and the dominant views within the situation which have been studied for research. If the researcher count or consider the powerful point of view, there must create the accusations of bias because powerful person has the tendency to misuse the power for his own interest and this the social bias and the question of accusation of bias that may be researched and the researcher find a concluding remarks if it is found any means of illegal application or misuse of power. In that regards the researcher will take the side of non-political situation. Because the issue can be explained by the context of accusation of bias, it is redeemed that the activities of political party sometimes stand them to the field to accusation just because of their misapplication of activities that is not accepted by the general people. In that case, when the researchers started to research on the particular issue on accusation of bias, then he or she has to take the side of one to set a concluding remark. And this is very natural as it has already been said that there is no option for the researcher to avoid the side of one.
However, if the researchers consider the superordinate point of view to the adoption of his side, then the sociologist will probably be termed as the accused of bias whatever the situation he can handle by the ethical issue. On this reading, superordinate and subordinate in the top of the organization or community assumption. The subordinate of an organization or a community are responsible for his job duties and responsibilities as he has been privately appointed to be reliable to his job out of the contradict views and it is very natural that they are not coherently politically mobilized and their views those actually they belong are not publicized. In this situation, the fact of accusations of researcher bias are likely to come from superordinate because the superordinate has to power as the position of top and the option of misuse this power and this misuse will arise only when the social scientist does not conform to official views. If we consider the serious issue of dissident perspectives of the clarification of some subordinates, then it may be highlighted that the subordinates are officially bound to do job. In that case, when the researchers started to research on the particular issue on accusation of bias, then he or she has to take the side of one to set a concluding remark. And this is very natural as it has already been said that there is no option for the researcher to avoid the side of one. Moreover, For considering the political and non-political issue, the factor prescribed by Becker Credibility Hierarchy comes forward. By the context of credibility hierarchy the assumption of political party and non-political are totally different. There is a political power of political party. On the other hand there is a social power of the non-political party. Non-political partly means the community of the society those who are involved with social work and those are defined from the sociologist point of view as the moral contribution to the society. On the other hand, the political party works for the society that means for the welfare as well as the development of the society as well as for the country. But here the accusation of bias is context for the both the party. Now come to the researches thinking. Whose side he is actually taking, is it the political party or non-political party. The answer is, the side will be the valid response of the researcher because when the researchers started to research on the particular issue on accusation of bias, then he or she has to take the side of one to set a concluding remark. And this is very natural as it has already been said that there is no option for the researcher to avoid the side of one.
Though there is no existence of the relationship between the views of sympathetic issue to one party or the place of systematic error. All the researching study will take place by the consideration of the biasness, where the social scientist will not show the aspect of sympathy to take the side of one. Even there will not have any space for the systematic error because the error is done the elaborative explanation where the scenario is described from the both point of view. Sometimes, there are many contradiction, that the social scientist or the sociologist are taking the side of the person who is powerful, who has the power, or who has the political power but this is just an exception. Because from the very beginning it has been the prescribed that the researcher is an individual entity, he or she has the judgmental to compare the things between what is right and what is wrong. On the base of the additional issue then he comes to the concluding remarks. But the corruption or the concretionary are the exception could ne be the real example. So, there is no scope of showing the sympathy or occurring any chance of systematic error. This argument has come to the front as because of the sociologists do not simply accept official views though the have the threat to the powerful persons but subject to the ethical issue it should be avoided. As a result it is seen that good sociological work will be out of the power and will not have contra dictionary issue regarding the taking of whom side. In addition to it can be said that the sociological work has the conformity of validity response to the work with the views of subordinates or non-powerful person or the nonpolitical persons.
So, finally the message to the whole study is that the researcher views of the talking side should on the principle of neutrality. Because, it can be said that by the beyond of the all issue, the sociologist as the researcher should be neutral to his comment. There may have come any sorts of threat or contradict issue to overwhelm the job of his, but he or she should keep in mind the principle of neutrality. The defense of the principle of the neutrality helps the sociologist or the researcher to avoid the bias and help them to keep the tendency to take the path of ethical involvement. Thus the concept of neutrality will undermine or define the validity of the researcher work as valid response and the valuable research as the valued response.
References
Becker, H.S., 1967. BECKER Whose Side Are We On? [Online] .
David, 2001. BECKER Whose Side Are We On. [Online] .
Hammersley, M., 2001. BECKER Whose Side Are We On? Questioning political and. [Online] .
Murphy, 2017. BECKER Whose Side Are We On. [Online] .
Plato, 2017. BECKER Whose Side Are We On: The Ethics of Clinical Research. [Online] .
Warren, J.a.G.K., 2015. Whose side are we on and for whom do we write? Notes on issues and challenges facing those researching and evaluating public policy. [Online]
Written by
Email: [email protected]