Why do social scientists recognize that research is seldom value-neutral? When is it important for the researcher to stop being value-neutral?

What will be an ideal response?

The researcher selects a topic because of an interest in a subject matter. This interest derives from a reason: politically advantageous, to receive grant money, a humanistic drive toward a social problem, or because one has experienced a social problem. Social scientists are humans too, and as such are a product of the values, moral attitudes, and beliefs orienting their social group. Even selecting certain terms to use in research (e.g., drug abuser) can reproduce a value system that defines their subjects in a particular way prior to even entering the field. The term itself can skew the reader's feelings by giving research subjects a demeaning label. Researchers can use the word "I" to take ownership and responsibility for what observations they make. Pretending to be neutral can prevent a researcher from examining his or her own cultural assumptions or personal experiences. When researchers are forthright about why they chose their topics, it offers a better understanding of who is conducting research, and why. The researcher shares the research experience, giving insight into the world of research to the reader.