What if the thing we pride ourselves on is actually undermining the value of our work? 

In the latest More Bang for Your Buck session, we explored a deliberately provocative question: is objectivity limiting the impact of research? 

For decades, researchers have been taught to see objectivity as the gold standard. We’re supposed to be neutral observers; carefully collecting data, analysing it without bias, and presenting the ‘facts’ exactly as they are. 

But what if that idea is flawed from the start? 

In conversation with Sam Salama, Insights Lead at the Met Police, Claire unpacked why the traditional idea of objectivity might be holding researchers back, and what a more useful mindset could look like instead.

The strange expectation placed on researchers

In most professions, having a point of view is not only acceptable, it’s expected. Strategists have perspectives. Designers have taste. Consultants make recommendations. But researchers? We’re often led to believe that our job is to be objective and to keep our own perspectives out of the work. And as Sam pointed out in the session, that’s a slightly strange expectation. 

Research doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every project involves choices: what questions to ask, which hypotheses to explore, what patterns matter, and what they might mean. Even the decision about what to research in the first place reflects someone’s judgement. 

The idea that researchers can simply remove themselves from that process is, at best, unrealistic. And at worst, it can actively weaken the value of the work. 

Where objectivity does matter

Before throwing the concept out entirely, it’s worth saying that objectivity does have a place in research. In particular, it matters in the execution of research. 

When designing studies, collecting data, or running analysis, fairness and rigour are crucial. We want methods that are robust, transparent, and will not be questioned. No one wants biased sampling, leading questions, or selective reporting. 

In that sense, objectivity or at least methodological rigour is essential. The problem comes when we extend objectivity to interpretation and insight. Because that’s where the idea starts to break down. 

Interpretation is never neutral 

Once data has been collected, the job of the researcher is not just to report it; it’s to make sense of it. And that process inevitably involves judgement. 

• Which findings matter most? 

• What patterns connect the dots? 

• What does this mean for decisions? 

Two researchers can look at the same dataset and draw different conclusions. Not because one is wrong, but because interpretation involves perspective. Pretending otherwise can lead to a false neutrality, where researchers hide behind the data rather than engaging with it. You’ve probably seen this in reports that present endless charts but stop short of saying what it all means. Lots of evidence but very few conclusions, or direction. 

And the irony is that in trying to appear objective, researchers can end up having little value.  

The danger of “neutral” research

When researchers see their role as neutral referees, something important gets lost - insight. 

Clients and stakeholders rarely need someone to simply replay the data back to them. They need someone who can help them understand what matters and what to do next. It requires interpretation. It requires judgement. And yes, it requires having a point of view. 

Without it, the work risks becoming safe, cautious, and ultimately forgettable. The most impactful research doesn’t just present information; it changes how people think.

From objectivity to transparency

So if perfect objectivity isn’t possible, or useful, what should researchers aim for instead? 

One useful shift is moving from objectivity to transparency. Rather than acting as though we have no perspective, we acknowledge the role of interpretation in our work. 

We explain: 

• the assumptions behind the research 

• the hypotheses being explored 

• the reasoning behind our conclusions 

In other words, we show our workings. 

By being open about how we reach our conclusions, we build trust. And this transparency allows stakeholders to engage with the thinking and challenge it if needed. That’s far more valuable and is where the magic happens. Bringing different perspectives each with their own area of expertise, whilst being clear on what’s driving each point of view. 

It’s about engaging with the evidence thoughtfully and honestly and having the confidence to draw meaningful conclusions from it. 

The real value of research 

Ultimately, the goal of research isn’t to produce perfectly neutral observations. It’s to generate understanding that leads to better decisions. 

That requires rigour, of course. But it also requires interpretation, perspective, and sometimes even a little courage. The real power of insight lies not just in collecting evidence but in making sense of it. 

If you’d like to listen to the full conversation with Sam Salama, you can do so here. And if you’re interested in future More Bang for Your Buck sessions, keep an eye on our upcoming events. 

Challenge Assumptions. Talk to Hummingbird Insights