Researcher as Instrument: A personal reflection from a Qualittative Researcher
Hi everyone!
Today I brought something new. Are you a qualitative researcher? Have you ever thought about the process you take when coding, engaging with your participants, or thinking about the ways and level of agreement you may agree or not agree with your participants' perspectives? Well, today I would like to bring mine.
As a Brazilian doctoral student studying in the United States, my research interest in how Brazilian graduate students experience and negotiate Latino identity within American higher education is deeply rooted in my experiences. I, also, have navigated institutional categorizations that define me as “Latino,” even when that label did not fully align with my cultural or personal sense of self. Like my participants, I applied for the LAC scholarship and went through similar internal questioning—do I identify as Latino, or am I being identified as such for institutional convenience? These shared experiences position me as an “insider” who can access nuanced perspectives and emotional truths that outsiders may miss. As Peshkin (2000) reminds us, our identities are not merely background elements but actively shape our interpretive journey. Allen et al. (2000) emphasize that a researcher’s racial, ethnic, and cultural location shapes how we are perceived in the field and how we construct meaning from our data. In my case, my Brazilian identity complicates and enriches my perspective within U.S. racialized categories, requiring constant interrogation of what “Latino” means contextually. From my point of view, the fact that I have lived the tensions my participants articulate enables a depth of empathetic engagement and a more layered reading of their narratives.
Yet, this experience presents challenges. My identification with the participants might unconsciously shape the questions I ask, or worse, what I assume needs no explanation. Peshkin’s notion of “problematics” encourages me to recognize how my positionality can illuminate and obscure my interpretations. I would say that if I believe that my participants must share my discomfort or confusion, I may project rather than listen. My goal is not to suppress my subjectivity but to remain reflexively aware of it, allowing it to be an object of critical analysis (Phillips, 1996, as cited in Peshkin). From my perspective, to grow as an instrument of qualitative research, I must further develop skills in bracketing assumptions and deepen my capacity for active listening and grounded questioning.
Regarding NVivo and CAQDAS tools, I initially found them helpful in organizing codes. However, I noticed how easily one can lean on thematic categorizations without engaging the deeper reflective process that interpretation demands. NVivo supports systematic analysis but must be paired with ongoing reflexivity, lest it flatten the complexity of lived experience into rigid nodes. As this research unfolds, I am reminded that my role is to uncover meaning and interrogate how that meaning is shaped by my questions, my presence, and the conceptual lenses I bring.
Please, tell me your thoughts!
The Great Gatsby!
Thank you for sharing such a personal and reflective post! As a fellow qualitative researcher, I really resonated with your discussion on positionality and the constant balancing act between being an “insider” and maintaining critical distance. It’s powerful that you’re not only aware of the potential for projection, but also actively working through it with reflexivity and care. Your point about NVivo and CAQDAS tools really hit home for me too—these tools are great for organization, but they can never replace the deep, human process of interpretation and meaning-making. I admire how you're engaging with your data not just methodologically, but emotionally and ethically. This is what makes qualitative research both challenging and deeply transformative. Excited to keep learning from your journey!
ReplyDelete