The researcher's freedom of speech

Researchers have the right to speak freely. This principle can be broken down into rights and duties.

Rights, because their years of study and specialisation entitle them to give an opinion as long as it is supported and sourced. In order to do this, researchers must conduct experiments, carry out qualitative and quantitative analyses and apply a rigorous methodology. This methodology differs depending on whether the researcher is in the human sciences or the so-called ‘hard’ sciences, but all research must declare the methodology used.

In the humanities and social sciences, this methodology is particularly demanding because of its disciplinary scope: analysing the human condition means dealing with a moving ground, as the human subject eludes protocols that have been fixed once and for all. Reproducible results with a permanent reliability of 100% are, to say the least, “questionable” in terms of the methodology used... Often based on “verbatims” from interviewees, the methodology requires data to be cross-referenced in order to understand apparent inconsistencies or contradictions, which must be explained or hypothesised. This in-depth work, which is often long and laborious, is a sign of the credibility of the social sciences and humanities researcher, who can then express himself/herself in his field, and his field alone.

Secondly, the researcher relies on the contributions of a whole community of other researchers whose work is published and validated. The “Holy Grail” is to publish in peer-reviewed journals... but for all that - let's not be naïve - the publication of these articles may be based more on human values than scientific requirements. Let's close the parenthesis!

A truly committed researcher works according to a code of ethics and ethical principles. These are his/her duties. They sometimes lead the researcher to reconsider an opinion in the light of new findings.

What would research be without updating conclusions based on what is actually happening in the field? And what would research be without the free speech of the researcher, who describes the reality of the field that he/she has conscientiously investigated and marked out according to his research subject?