What should scientists reveal about themselves when reporting research?
The November 1, 2023 Science article Should scientists include the race, gender, or other personal details in papers? addresses the complex issue of how important the personal background of a research report’s author might be to consumers of that research. For example, if a researcher investigates a sensitive topic such as racial discrimination, should the researcher openly state his or her own personal demographics so readers might (theoretically, at least) have some insight into why the topic was chosen or how the data were analyzed?
Or, should the more traditional approach of “Let the facts speak for themselves” be sufficient (along with traditional details of the author’s institutional affiliation and funding source)?
Requiring that researchers publish details about their personal background or experiences along with their research report is, according to the Science article, becoming more common, at least among younger researchers.
Those who have studied the history or sociology of science appreciate that personal background and social position can impact scientific research behaviors. This behavior can include the choice of research topics, the methods used to manage the research, and the manner in which research findings are communicated. (For an exploration of this in detail see Howard Markel's The Secret of Life: Rosalind Franklin, James Watson, Francis Crick, and the Discovery of DNA's Double Helix.)
While "pure objectivity" may be a value to be pursued, I question whether it is always attained, even if we are considering only the “harder” sciences. The examples provided in the Science article show how some research topics can reflect a complex mix of social, biological, and physical science research influences. It therefore sounds reasonable that many readers of a research report could be interested in understanding more about the author(s) of a report including why a particular research topic was selected by the researcher. This would almost certainly have impacted the researcher’s formulation of research objectives and whether or not those objectives were met by the research findings.
The potential flaw in this reasoning is that it is not unusual for stated research objectives not to be met. This is not necessarily due to a flaw in how research is conducted (which is admittedly a possibility) but is due to the simple fact that research often uncover surprises or unexpected results. Even if a researcher openly and clearly states his or her personal background motives and biases in selecting and pursuing a particular research topic or approach, it's also possible that what the research actually uncovers is surprising or unexpected—or even unrelated to the researchers "biases."
Still, I think it's valuable to provide readers with personal background information that might provide insightful to understanding of the reported research. I do however have doubts about the extent to which this can be standardized into a checklist of key data fields that must be revealed, given the complexity of reasons and motivations driving how research is designed and conducted. More important is provision of information that helps readers to communicate with the researcher and the communities in which he or she operate.
Copyright (c) 2023 by Dennis D. McDonald