By Shashikant Nishant Sharma
There has long been an ongoing debate about the role of objectivity in qualitative research. Unlike quantitative traditions that emphasize neutrality and detachment, qualitative inquiry recognizes that the researcher is not an “outsider” who can simply collect and report data without influence. Rather, we bring our own perspectives, identities, and lived experiences into the field. These inevitably shape how we design our studies, ask questions, engage with participants, interpret findings, and ultimately construct narratives.
For some, this appears to undermine the credibility of qualitative work. If researchers cannot be fully “objective,” how can their findings be trusted? But I believe the answer lies not in denying subjectivity, but in acknowledging and critically engaging with it. The goal is not to erase who we are, but to practice what many scholars call reflexive objectivity—a way of producing knowledge that is honest about the influence of positionality while still striving for rigor and transparency.
Making Positionality Explicit
As a qualitative researcher, I begin by situating myself in relation to the topic. I reflect on my background, training, social identity, values, and even the institutional setting that shapes my perspective. For instance, my understanding of mobility, safety, or community participation may differ based on my own cultural and professional experiences. This positionality does not invalidate the research—it provides context for how I see and interpret the world.
Acknowledging positionality means that instead of claiming to be a neutral observer, I recognize the role of my standpoint in shaping interactions with participants and in framing the data. This act of disclosure not only strengthens trustworthiness but also helps readers evaluate how my lens influences the findings.
Reflexivity as a Continuous Practice
Reflexivity is not a one-time exercise; it is an ongoing practice woven throughout the entire research process. To me, reflexivity means asking: Why am I drawn to this topic? How do my assumptions guide the kinds of questions I ask? In what ways do I interpret a participant’s words through my own framework?
I employ several strategies to remain reflexive and accountable:
- Reflexive journaling – Keeping a research diary allows me to capture my evolving thoughts, doubts, and emotional reactions during fieldwork and analysis. By revisiting these notes, I can identify moments when my assumptions may have influenced interpretation and work to balance them with participants’ voices.
- Member checking – I often share preliminary interpretations with participants themselves, asking whether my analysis resonates with their experiences. This feedback helps me avoid misrepresentations and ensures that the narrative is not solely my construction, but co-shaped with those whose lives the research reflects.
- Peer debriefing – Engaging in conversations with colleagues or mentors acts as a form of intellectual accountability. By exposing my interpretations to critique, I become more aware of blind spots and can strengthen the analysis through dialogue.
- Thick description – When writing, I strive to provide rich contextual details about settings, interactions, and participants’ perspectives. This not only captures the complexity of lived experiences but also allows readers to assess how my interpretations were constructed and to draw their own conclusions.
- Audit trail – I maintain systematic records of data collection, coding, and analytical decisions. Documenting these steps makes the process transparent and demonstrates that findings are not arbitrary but grounded in systematic engagement with the data.
Transparency and Accountable Subjectivity
In qualitative research, transparency is central to credibility. By documenting and openly communicating how decisions were made, which voices were prioritized, and how interpretations evolved, I make it possible for others to understand the logic of my narrative.
This does not mean I eliminate bias completely—bias is inherent in being human. Instead, I aim for what scholars describe as accountable subjectivity: the practice of recognizing one’s perspective, being explicit about it, and showing how it shapes the research process. In doing so, I move away from the illusion of “pure objectivity” and towards a more honest, situated, and ethically responsible approach to knowledge creation.
Reframing the Debate
Thus, the debate about objectivity in qualitative research is not about whether we can achieve absolute neutrality (we cannot). Rather, it is about how we, as researchers, negotiate our positionality in a way that enhances the rigor and credibility of our work. For me, reflexivity and transparency are not optional—they are integral to ethical qualitative practice.
By embracing reflexivity, I am not weakening the scientific value of my research; I am strengthening it. By disclosing my positionality, I am not inserting “bias” into the findings; I am showing readers the lens through which meaning was constructed. By creating space for participants’ validation and peer critique, I am not undermining my authority as a researcher; I am ensuring that the narrative is both authentic and trustworthy.
In the end, qualitative research is less about claiming universal truths and more about providing deep, situated insights into human experiences. The role of the researcher is to co-construct these narratives responsibly—acknowledging subjectivity, engaging critically with it, and ensuring that knowledge is produced with rigor, integrity, and respect.
References
Dehalwar, K. S. S. N., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Exploring the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods. Think India Journal, 27(1), 7-15.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732.
Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Social Injustice Inflicted by Spatial Changes in Vernacular Settings: An Analysis of Published Literature.
Grossoehme, D. H. (2014). Overview of qualitative research. Journal of health care chaplaincy, 20(3), 109-122.
Lodhi, A. S., Jaiswal, A., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Assessing bus users satisfaction using discrete choice models: a case of Bhopal. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 9(11), 437.
Sharma, S. N., Dehalwar, K., Singh, J., & Kumar, G. (2024, February). Prefabrication Building Construction: A Thematic Analysis Approach. In International Conference on Advances in Concrete, Structural, & Geotechnical Engineering (pp. 405-428). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. Examining the Inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for Senior Citizens. In Transforming Healthcare Infrastructure (pp. 115-134). CRC Press.
