Are the traits that govern human power interactions shared with other primates? If either developmental, genetic or both, if these traits are shared the potential for research is great, and humanities’ current primate diplomacy may have to be rethought.
When we identify with an action as similar to one of our own, we identify the actor as similar to us. This is called anthropomorphizing when done to something other than human. Though the connection is made using empathy and the task completed may serve an identical purpose, differences in developmental environment mean that correlation must be taken with an air of caution.
Contemporary psychologists are well aware of the experimenter effect, by which the expectations of a researcher influences the outcome of a study. Double blind experiments are used as proofing against this, but with even this precaution there is always a uncontrolled variable in it.
The flavor of anthropological research seems to be one of connection with the focus of ones’ research, awknowleging the influence visited upon group dynamic by the reseracher and encouraging first person conjecture and expectations as a part of the commentary. This technique of meta commentary, by which a discerning reader may account for experimenter bias while accepting the results through a subjective lens may be a far more efficient way of dealing with experimenter bias in research.
Given current methodology of research into primate power interactions, it is enevidable that researchers will influence their results. Only with care and attention to detail on the parts of both the researcher in publishing and peers in review can any further insight into primates be gleened.
No comments:
Post a Comment