But it can be used to elucidate a specific phenomenon and capture aspects of lived human experience statistical tabulations cannot. This is not to say that qualitative research must lack a theoretical basis, but that theories must be used creatively, to illuminate rather than limit thought. The voices of the participants should not be subsumed to theories. One good self-check regarding the appropriate use of theory is to ask one's self the question: "Does the research participant's voice dominate? Or does the researcher's voice dominate" the summary and analysis (Weber, 2003, x).
This does not mean that the subject must agree with everything that the researcher says, but if the researcher renders the subject into an object and does not present the subject's own perspective, in the subject's own words, the accuracy of the final report might be questionable. This problem is not limited to qualitative approaches, however: "even using the same data set, one researcher...
Somewhere an aspect of the analysis depends on a decision where the researchers, either explicitly or implicitly, have made different choices" (Weber, 2003, x).
Introducing a personal voice is one of the ways that reflexive researchers interject themselves into the research process. However, this can be dangerous, as a researcher does not want to be so reflexive as to be narcissistic, or to dilute the value of the research itself. Making reflexivity part of the 'pre-writing' process, or part of the research, editorial discussion, and debate between colleagues outside of the actual academic paper itself is perhaps the best way to be reflexive without making what should be an interesting paper on phenomenon into something 'about' the process of writing itself.
Reference
Weber. (2003, December). The reflexive researcher. MIS Quarterly. 27…
