Objectivity or different levels of subjectivity: A sociomaterial study on the measurement of the quality of the indoor air

Abstract

<p>

</p><p>Objectivity has often been seen as an important target to aim for in accounting research as well as in society more generally. This study shows how objectivity as related to measurement can be rhetorically used against the experiences of humans, resulting in serious consequences. We thus question the desirable characteristics of objectivity as tied to measurement. The setting is that of indoor air problems which have recently heavily escalated in the Nordic countries; we focus on a public institution in which people’s subjective experiences about the quality of indoor air appear to conflict with the “objective” measurements by technical instruments. We take a sociomaterial view on this, recognizing both social (human) and material (measurement instruments, measures) issues intermingled. Measurement is shown as a calculative practice that can have a twofold meaning: objective measurement and subjective experience. It is shown here that the subjective experience is “real” in this setting and that objectivity seems impossible to achieve and thus realize; although the formal view in the organization is exactly the opposite: “reality” is seen exclusively as objective measurements while any subjective experiences are not seen as part of “reality”. This contradiction forces organizational members to choose between two realities: “objectivity”, i.e. formal, technical results, and “humanity”, i.e., people’s subjective experiences. We show how objectivity can be replaced with four different levels of subjectivity that have a much more real meaning than the artificial construct of objectivity.</p><p>

<br /></p>