Researchers who have been prepared in positivist traditions to social research frequently equate “subjectivity” with “bias,” which is viewed as both a problem to be managed and a threat to the credibility of a study. Teachers of qualitative research methods are familiar with questions about “subjectivity” that invoke “bias” from newcomers to qualitative research. This article revisits the methodological literature to examine how bias has been understood in qualitative inquiry. We argue for an approach to teaching qualitative research methods that assists students to make sense of long-standing and new debates related to “bias” and reconceptualize it in relation to their work. We provide recommendations for how teachers of qualitative inquiry might do this and illustrate these strategies with examples drawn from methodological reflections completed by a graduate student taking qualitative coursework.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2.
BaroneT. E. (1992). On the demise of subjectivity in educational inquiry. Curriculum Inquiry, 22, 25-38.
3.
BestJ. W.KahnJ. V. (Eds.). (2003). Research in education (9th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
BreuerF.RothW.-M. (2003). Subjectivity and reflexivity in the social sciences: Epistemic windows and methodical consequences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4, 184-194.
5.
BrownL. (Ed.). (1993). The new shorter Oxford English dictionary. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
6.
Burton-JonesA. (2009). Minimizing method bias through programmatic research. MIS Quarterly, 33, 445-471.
7.
CampbellD. T.RussoM. J. (Eds.). (2001). Social measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
ChenailR. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 16, 255-262.
9.
CooleD. H.FrostS. (Eds.). (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
11.
DanbyS.EwingL.ThorpeK. (2011). The novice researcher: Interviewing young children. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 74-84.
12.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (MassumiB., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.SmithL. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
DevaultM. L. (1990). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems, 37, 96-116.
15.
EtheringtonK. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
16.
FineM. (2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression and resistance—A textbook for critical research. Social Justice Research, 19, 83-108.
17.
FinlayL. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2, 209-230.
18.
FinlayL. (2012). Five lenses for the reflexive interviewer. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A.MarvastiA.McKinneyK. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 317-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
FinlayL.GoughB. (Eds.). (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
20.
FreemanM.deMarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK.St. PierreE. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32. doi:10.3102/0013189x06298009
21.
GallM. D.GallJ. P.BorgW. R. (Eds.). (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
GlaserB. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory?Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), Article 12.
23.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
24.
Haertling TheinA. (2013). Language arts teachers’ resistance to teaching LGBT literature and issues. Language Arts, 90, 169-180.
HardingS. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” In AlcoffL.PotterE. (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49-82). London, England: Routledge.
27.
HardingS. (2007). Feminist standpoints. In Hesse-BiberS. N. (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 45-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
HylandK. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In Starke-MeyerringD.PareA.ArtemevaN.HorneM.YousoubovaL. (Eds.), Writing in knowledge societies (pp. 193-214). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
30.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
JanesickV. J. (1999). A journal about journal writing as a qualitative research technique: History, issues, and reflections. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 505-524. doi:10.1177/107780049900500404
32.
KriegerS. (1985). Beyond “subjectivity”: The use of the self in social science. Qualitative Sociology, 8, 309-324.
33.
LatherP. A. (2004). Critical inquiry in qualitative research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives: Science “after truth.” In DeMarraisK.LapanS. D. (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 203-216). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
LatherP. A. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 35-57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
35.
LatourB. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 107-123.
36.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
38.
LincolnY. S.LynhamS. A.GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
LuttrellW. (Ed.). (2010a). Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
LuttrellW. (2010b). Reflexive writing exercises. In LuttrellW. (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice (pp. 469-480). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
LynchM. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 26-54.
42.
MacbethD. (2001). On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings and a third. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 35-68.
43.
MacLureM. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 658-667.
44.
MallozziC. A. (2009). Voicing the interview: A researcher’s exploration on a platform of empathy. Qualitative Inquiry, 15, 1042-1060. doi:10.1177/1077800409334227
45.
MasoI. (2003). Necessary subjectivity: Exploiting researchers’ motives, passions and prejudices in pursuit of answering “true” questions. In FinlayL.GoughB. (Eds.), Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences (pp. 39-51). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
MeyerE. J. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
50.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
51.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
52.
OgdenR. (2008). Bias. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 1, pp. 60-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
53.
OnwuegbuzieA.LeechN. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?Quality & Quantity, 41, 233-249. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3
54.
ParéA. (2010). Slow the presses: Concerns about premature publication. In AitchisonC.KamlerB.LeeA. (Eds.), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond (pp. 30-46). London, England: Routledge.
55.
PeshkinA. (1988). In search of subjectivity: One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-22.
56.
PillowW. S. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 175-196.
57.
PollioH. R.HenleyT. B.ThompsonC. J. (1997). The phenomenology of everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
PotterJ.HepburnA. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A.MarvastiA.McKinneyK. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 555-570). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
59.
PreissleJ. (2008). Subjectivity statement. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 844-845). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
60.
RapleyT. (2004). Interviews. In SealeC.GoboG.GubriumJ.SilvermanD. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 15-33). London, England: SAGE.
61.
RapleyT. (2012). The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 541-554). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
RossmanG. B.RallisS. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
RoulstonK. (2010b). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. London, England: SAGE.
65.
RoulstonK. (2011a). Interview “problems” as topics for analysis. Applied Linguistics, 32, 77-94. doi:10.1093/applin/amq036
66.
RoulstonK. (2011b). Working through challenges in doing interview research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10, 348-366.
67.
RoulstonK. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14, 277-293. doi:10.1177/1468794112473497
68.
RoulstonK.BakerC. D.LiljestromA. (2001). Analyzing the researcher’s work in generating data: The case of complaints. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 745-772.
SchwandtT. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
71.
SchwandtT. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
72.
SiegesmundR. (2008). Subjectivity. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 843-844). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
73.
SmithL. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, England: Zed Books.
74.
St. PierreE. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13, 477-515.
75.
St. PierreE. A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 611-625). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
76.
St. PierreE. A.JacksonA. Y. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 715-719.
77.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837-851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121
