Queer(ing) the Bias Monster and Subjectivities: Shifting From Confessions to Reflexivity

Abstract

Bias is a long-established concern in qualitative research, and researchers often work to erase, or at least manage, bias through subjectivity statements that work as confessionals, rather than approaching bias and subjectivity as inevitable, humanizing, and valuable research concepts. This paper draws on imaginative narratives and Barad’s engagements with queer theory to emphasize the importance of disrupting these notions and understanding bias and subjectivity as dynamic and mutable concepts that might contribute to deeper reflexivity and new research possibilities. The overarching argument is to tie bias, subjectivity, and reflexivity together not as oppositional or even complementary concepts but as a queer self-birthing of multiple, mutable selves full of possibility.

Keywords

subjectivity bias queer theory narrative reflexivity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barad

(2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.

Barad

(2015). Transmaterialities: trans*/matter/realities and queer political imagining. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 21(2-3), 387–422. https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2843239

Bhattacharya

(2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Routledge.

Boyne

(2006). Subjectivity. In Jupp

(Ed.), The Sage dictionary of social research methods (pp. 293–294). Sage.

Burns

(1988). Standards for qualitative research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 2(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/089431848900200112

Chiseri-Strater

(1996). Turning in upon ourselves: Positionality, subjectivity, and reflexivity in case study and ethnographic research. In Mortensen

Kirsch

G. E.

(Eds.), Ethics and responsibility in qualitative studies of literacy (pp. 115–133). NCTE.

Esposito

Evans-Winters

(2022). Introduction to intersectional qualitative research. Sage.

Fine

(2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression and resistance: A textbook for critical research. Social Justice Research, 19, 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0001-0

Galiano

A. M.

Vinturella

J. B.

(1995). Implications of gender bias in the family business. Family Business Review, 8(3), 157–242. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1995.00177.x

10.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1981). Effective evaluation. Josey-Bass Publishers.

11.

Halberstam

(1995). Skin shows. Duke University Press.

12.

Harding

(2007). Feminist standpoints. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 45–70). Sage.

13.

Howell

K. W.

Bigelow

S. S.

Moore

E. L.

Evoy

A. M.

(1993). Bias in authentic assessment. Diagnostique, 19(1), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/153450849301900105

14.

Küçüksu

Shelton

S. A.

(2021). Bias: An unavoidable subjectivity. In Morin

Olsson

Atikcan

(Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences: An a-z of key concepts (pp. 22–26). Oxford University.

15.

Letherby

(2012). Objectivity and subjectivity in social research. Sage.

16.

Loos

G. P.

(1995). Foldback analysis: A method to reduce bias in behavioral health research conducted in cross-cultural settings. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(4), 379–480.

17.

Mains

D. R.

(1990). Misconstruing the problem: Comment on “race and class bias in qualitative research on women.” Gender & Society, 4(2), 244–247.

18.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.

19.

Mehra

(2002). Bias in qualitative research: Voices from the online classroom. The Qualitative Report, 7(1), 1–19. Retrieved from. https://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-1/mehra.html

20.

Pillow

W. 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(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635

21.

Preissle

(2008). Subjectivity statement. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 844–845). Sage.

22.

Roulston

Shelton

S. A.

(2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803

23.

Shelley

M. W.

(1818/2012). Frankenstein or the modern prometheus. Planet eBook, available at: https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/frankenstein.pdf (accessed July 18, 2018).

24.

Shelton

S. A.

(2019). ‘When I do “bad stuff,” I make the most difference’: Exploring doubt, demoralization, and contradictions in LGBTQIA + ally work. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(6), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1609117

25.

Shelton

S. A.

(2014). Narrative interviewing: Teachers’ experiences with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues in education. In Sage Research Methods Cases (pp. 1–16). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014528622

26.

Shelton

S. A.

(2018). Queering intersectional literacies to redefine female sexualities: A case study. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 67(1), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336918786737

27.

Shelton

S. A.

Brooks

(2021). Queering the consent process: (un)masking participant identity in risky LGBTQ + teacher ally work. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(9), 812–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.1942300

28.

Shelton

S. A.

Flint

M. A.

(2019a). The spacetimemattering and Frankenstein-esque nature of interview transcriptions. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-03-2019-104

29.

Shelton

S. A.

Flint

M. A.

(2019b). The value of transcription in encouraging researcher reflexivity. In Sage research methods cases (pp. 1–11). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526477705

30.

Shelton

S. A.

Guyotte

K. W.

Flint

M. A.

(2019). (Wo)monstrous suturing: Woman doctoral students cutting together/apart. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 10(2-3), 112–146. https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.3673

31.

Siegesmund

(2008). Subjectivity. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 843–844). Sage.

32.

University of Alabama . (2022). Qualitative research at the university of Alabama. University of Alabama. available at. https://qualresearch.ua.edu/ (accessed 24 February 2022).

33.

University of Oxford . (2022). Introduction to qualitative research. University of Oxford, available at. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/study/short-courses-in-qualitative-research-methods/introduction-to-qualitative-researchmethods (accessed 10 September 2022).

34.

University of West Georgia . (2022). Qualitative research. University of West Georgia, available at. https://www.westga.edu/academics/research/vrc/qualitative-research.php (accessed 24 February 2022).

35.

Weintraub

(1984). The general clinical pharmacology “bias elimination” method: Special workshop—clinical. Drug Information Journal Information Journal, 18(3-4), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/009286158401800316

36.

Zhejiang University . (2022). Qualitative research methods for China studies. Zhejiang University, available at. https://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.304139.1477472348!/menu/standard/file/Intensive_course_6_-_Qualitative_Research_Methods_for_China_Studies_(Aarhus).pdf (accessed 10 September 2002).