Subjectivity in Qualitative Research
Despite being overlooked by many scholars, subjectivity has been an essential aspect of qualitative research. For instance, qualitative research is mostly conducted in real-life settings prompting the scholars to partake in the studies (Molinuevo et al., 2017). Research related to social science is quite distinct from other fields, of course since its inquiries majorly focus on human subjects rather than objects such as abstractions, objects, and symbols. Subjectivity controls everything from the topic that the researcher chooses to study, generated hypotheses, selected methodologies, and interprets data, hence justifying that the generated results are accurate.
One of the advantages of subjectivity is that it promotes credibility in data analysis. Credibility is the quality of being acceptable and dependable. In research, credibility is the initial aspect or criterion that ought to be established (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2020). Scholars agree that credibility is the most vital aspect in establishing trustworthiness since it essentially requires the researcher to link the findings of the research study with the presented reality to ascertain the truths of the research’s findings.
Unlike in the quantitative method, subjectivity can at least make researchers cautious when interpreting data. The only question that researchers who use this methodology have is to determine how much they wish to validate the findings. Although research relying cognitively and exclusively on one’s subject may assume the criteria established by science, it can be the research project’s central theme. For instance, by using a third party, Peshkin quickly realized that the subject I interviewed had a significant impact on his behavior (Peshkin, 1988). In connection to this, it later became apparent that he developed a tendency, when examining the data, to overemphasize on critical positive facets of the subjects’ character or to explore for possible explanations for their personality while assuming annotations which may have negatively influenced how he depicted them.
Two possible reasons can only clarify the presence of this tendency. The first one is the researcher’s desire or motivation to conserve the image or depiction he had to the subjects. The second one alludes to the result of the established relationship between the researcher and the issues. For example, when Peshkin was analyzing the Pedagogical-Meliorist I, he was tempted to actively participate in the study as he assumed that he had the responsibility to change the negative aspect of the situation and turn it to a positive one (Peshkin, 1988). After observing the teaching methods at Riverview High School, Peshkin concluded that the poor teaching skills exhibited by the teachers significantly contributed to the array of complex factors that promoted poverty in the area (Sutton & Austin, 2015). For a moment, Peshkin assumed that the children in that school will never be catapulted out of its low-performance tracks and that the poverty will demoralize the student’s attitude for a good life. Sitting in the classroom, Peshkin thought that he could salvage the school’s education system. However, He soon realized that he is neither an evaluator nor a reformer in his studying the school personnel. His presence is neither to judge if the school teaches its students well or poorly nor improve their current status. Although he had a right to be interested, Peshkin was not supposed to be judgmental, yet he judged and wanted to redress the pedagogical wrongs. After analyzing the situation, Peshkin later realized that his direct intervention undermined the integrity of a nonjudgmental personal by elevating reason over subjectivity. By returning to his role as an observer, Peshkin was able to validate his findings.
Another advantage of utilizing subjectivity in qualitative research is that it promotes transparency. Transparency in the process of being clear and straightforward to uphold accountability. Making research data and data analysis more transparent has a variety of advantages to any scientific method. Transparency serves essential objects such as accountability, the cumulation of evidence over a given period, efficiency, prevention, correction of disputable data, and replicability (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2020). All in all, transparency is the foundation of social science. Scholarly research rests on researcher’s responsibility to reveal to their contemporaries the theory, data, as well as methodology that their conclusion chooses. Except other researchers can scrutinize evidence, deduce the analysis and conceptualize the process of selecting evidence as well as ideas, why should they rely and thus spend the time and effort to critiques, debate, extend, or scrutinize existing research?
The predicament of not harvesting potentially vital content of data sources can be reduced by using tools that support data collection. In qualitative research, subjectivity is the most critical tool that scholars use to guarantee transparency (Sutton & Austin, 2015). When researching a particular topic, introducing subjectivity becomes a necessary factor in facilitating transparency since it places that researcher at the center of the conflict not only to collect data but to experience the underlying factors that affect the development results.
In his research, Peshkin is seen to utilize the awareness of subjectivity to persuade the audience and himself on the study (Peshkin, 1988). The researcher realized that subjectivity could be termed as virtuous by virtue that it is the predisposition of scholars’ making a unique contribution, one that originates from the unique design of their personal qualities associated with the collection of data (Molinuevo et al., 2017). The researcher also affirmed that his subsequent studies would relatively require his subjectivity. Moreover, Peshkin aspired to be aware of the whole process, heedful of its enabling as well as disabling prospectives while collecting data.
Through this direct interaction with the presented situations in analyzing the Nonresearch Human I, the Pedagogical-Meliorist I, the Justice-seeking I, the E-Pluribus-Unum I, the Community-Maintenance I, and the Ethic-Maintenance I, Peshkin was able to establish openness and accountability to his findings. From Peshkin’s work, readers can access the facts or the data employed to prop up the empirical research arguments (Peshkin, 1988). Ostensibly this sanctions the audience to appreciate the quality and hint of what the sources allude, evaluate exactly how they correlate with the broader suggestions, and assess whether they have been investigated or interpreted correctly. In most cases, exploring qualitative research based on the critical textual evidence has proved to be hectic to researchers (Molinuevo et al., 2017). Those who conceptualize review or broaden an existing study usually find it hard to identify sources. However, the subjectivity aspect proves to be useful as it makes the researcher dependable on his or her data. Respectively, being at the center of the action reduces the ambiguity of the data collected.
In conclusion, subjectivity is solely dependable on the researcher’s epistemological as well as the ontological assumption. Researchers of social sciences who use subjectivity in their study find it easy when establishing the reliability of their research to the reader. By using a third party aspect and interacting with the subjects in the study, scholars who use subjectivity increase credibility and transparency.