Two issues will be discussed in this regard: dealing with researcher bias in qualitative studies and bias inherent in insider research. In the paradigm of qualitative research, a researcher’s personal beliefs and values are reflected not only by the choice of methodology and interpretation of findings, but also by the choice of a research topic. Researchers cannot separate themselves from the topic or the people they are studying since it is through the interaction between them that knowledge is created. Qualitative researchers are not separate from the study and cannot remain outsiders to it; still, their roles do not qualify them to be complete insiders (Corbin & Buckle, 2009). Krieger (1991) argues that the outer world, or our “external reality”, is inseparable from what we already know based on our lives and experiences – our inner reality, and that the knowledge of the external world is only a small part of what our total knowledge can be; what we ever really know is, in essence, the self. Thus, the reality we all see is based on our understanding of the world, which in turn is based on our knowledge of the self. The researcher is engaged in a direct
social interaction with his participants and has to face two subjectivities: his own and that of his narrators (Gluck, 1994). Such a perspective is perhaps a paradoxical one: it is to be acutely tuned-in to the experiences and meaning systems of others and at the same time to be aware of how one’s own biases and preconceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994).
Conducting investigation in one’s home locale raises a number of issues relating to insider research, including the possible effect on the research validity. There exist many cited advantages of insider research, such as having a good knowledge of environment and participants and the possibility of accessing the field more quickly and intimately than in an outsider research (Green, 2014; Chavez, 2008). In the current study, the researcher is a Maronite Christian who shares the same home town with the research participants, shares the same language, culture, church and heritage. Because the researcher is familiar with the population and culture under study, he knows how to approach his respondents and make interaction natural. On the other hand, prior knowledge, underlying personal bias and preconceived ideas can render disadvantages to this intimate type of ‘insider research’ (Rabbitt, 2003) since, within the same community and family, the ‘insider’ relationship can cause particular pockets of information not to be elaborated upon, or conversely, make them over-emphasized. Furthermore, although the researcher might be part of the culture under study, they might not necessarily understand the subculture, which points to the need for bracketing assumptions (Asselin, 2003). The question also arises as to whether the researcher's moral, cultural and political standpoints lead them to subconscious distortion of data (Green, 2014). Therefore, concern is frequently expressed about the extent to which the status of ‘insider researcher’ adversely affects the research undertaken (Green, 2014; Walsh, 2007).
In this case, an ‘outsider anonymous’, for instance, can come with a different
‘pair of eyes’ and approach the research field holding a ‘tabula rasa’ approach, free of expectations and preconceived ideas (Smith, 1999). Such an approach might have implications on this research in two different ways: if the research is
to be replicated, an outsider would not be able to gain the participants trust and gather the ‘soft data’ gathered as an insider. The Maronite community feels too proud to share personal details when it comes to the relation with the church.
An outsider, therefore, might have a different approach to the research, probably focusing on more general and ‘visible’ topics concerning cultural influences and heritage. By taking such an approach, an outsider might reveal certain layers in the relation between the community and other communities and it would not be as easy to study the community as individuals and touch such sensitive issues as identities, within a limited period of time.
The researcher has to be aware of the delimitations one puts self into regarding the advantages, or disadvantages, of being a privileged, but biased insider, or a researcher with ‘normal’ rights in terms of accessibility to knowledge, but a more objective outsider. The subjectivity in which the insider researcher lives makes it difficult for them to “step back” and take a dispassionate look at the setting (Jubran, 2005). Bias can creep into our research in more than one way and can reside, for instance, on the outskirts of an interview’s subject matter and quality of questions. Lee (1993) and Scheunrich (1994; 1995) number race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, status, social class and age in certain context as potential sources of bias. Whether the researcher is an insider, sharing the characteristics, role, or experience under study with the participants, or an outsider to the commonality shared by participants, the personhood of the researcher, including her or his membership status in relation to those participating in the research, is an essential and ever-present aspect of the investigation (Corbin & Buckle, 2009).
In order to minimize bias inherent in qualitative studies, particularly in an insider research, several actions have to be followed through the different stages of the research work. There is no guarantee that the research is bias-free since, in a way, we are all biased to something. Yet, one can limit the bias by first being aware of its existence and later by providing bias-limiting effects. There is the need of building on what was said, not what the researcher wants to hear, in collecting and analyzing the research data and the necessity of being constantly reflective regarding the whole research process (Green, 2014;
Guion, 2001). In the current study, the researcher provided a secure, relaxed
atmosphere, ensuring that a conversation, rather than investigation, took place.
This allowed the researcher to pay attention to the details of what was being said, by recording the responses, for example, and referring back to them when in doubt of bias.
The data were gathered through more than one method and their interpretation was achieved by referring to their oral and written comments in the different methods and getting confirmation from them to what they meant, not to what the researcher wanted to hear (Watson, 1999). In the adolescents’ in-depth interview, some questions were modified after the piloting stage since some were biased by guiding to a certain view. In the narrative text tools, the poems were selected, though all relating to the identity issue, from a wide variety of poets, thus reducing one’s own preferences, and consequently bias for a specific definition of identity. In the ethnographic parents’ interview, there were general topics rather than direct questions, which allowed them to express themselves freely with no guiding from the researcher. The focus group was an important factor in limiting bias because it was held after the initial analysis of the other methods and the participants confirmed their attitudes by discussing them in general terms, and then channeling them into more specific issues, without any leading questions, thus allowing them to discuss any aspect of their experience, without taking the researcher’s personal attitude into consideration (Armstrong, 2001).
Being an insider might raise issues of undue influence of the researcher’s perspective, although being an outsider does not create immunity to that same influence either. The positive and negative elements of each must therefore be carefully assessed (Corbin & Buckle, 2009). In the following section, the sampling process will be discussed and the way the participants were selected will be justified, a process which can also be affected by bias, since in practitioner research, the researcher might tend to look for purposive sampling which, though it can help in enhancing understanding, it might also lead to bias by who is being selected and how.