Resisting the Objectification of Qualitative Research: The Unsilencing of Context, Researchers, and Noninterview Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on an analysis of qualitative research papers published between 2019 and 2021 in four top-tier management journals, we outline three interrelated silences that play a role in the objectification of qualitative research: silencing of noninterview data, silencing the researcher, and silencing context. Our analysis unpacks six silencing moves: creating a hierarchy of data, marginalizing noninterview data, downplaying researcher subjectivity, weakening the value of researcher interpretation, thin description, and backgrounding context. We suggest how researchers might resist the objectification of qualitative research and regain its original promise in developing more impactful and interesting theories: noninterview data can be unsilenced by democratizing data sources and utilizing nonverbal data, the researcher can be unsilenced by leveraging engagement and crafting interpretations, and finally, context can be unsilenced by foregrounding context as an interpretative lens and contextualizing the researcher, the researched, and the research project. Overall, we contribute to current understandings of the objectification of qualitative research by both unpacking particular moves that play a role in it and delineating specific practices that help researchers embrace subjectivity and engage in inspired theorizing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.555 | 0.551 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".