Researchers, while perhaps not always consciously, inevitably bring their own political and cultural perspectives to their work. These perspectives influence various stages of the research process, from sample selection and question formulation to data collection and analysis.
Individual researchers’ worldviews, shaped by factors such as upbringing, race, gender, and personal values, significantly impact their research. As Denzin & Lincoln (2018) eloquently describe in their handbook, these deeply held beliefs, including ontological assumptions about the nature of reality, influence how researchers perceive and interpret the world.
This is particularly relevant in qualitative research, where subjectivity plays a crucial role. As Watt (2007) highlights, researchers grapple with the question of how much personal voice to incorporate into their work. This inherent subjectivity has historically contributed to the skepticism surrounding qualitative research within the quantitative research community. The ongoing debate centers around finding an appropriate balance between objectivity and subjectivity, and effectively implementing reflexive practices, which are themselves inherently subjective.
While acknowledging the importance of critical perspectives from quantitative researchers, it is crucial to recognize the value and necessity of qualitative and interpretivist research, particularly in certain fields.

Positionality in Research

The concept of positionality emphasizes the influence of researchers’ social and cultural backgrounds and their position within power structures on their research. Lather (2006) critiques the resurgence of positivism, arguing that its application in social sciences can reinforce existing power imbalances. She advocates for more diverse methodologies that incorporate perspectives beyond the traditional Western male viewpoint, leading to more inclusive, transparent, and holistic knowledge production.
However, it is important to note that excessive subjectivity in research can also pose challenges. While objectivity may lead to biased research outcomes, excessive subjectivity can result in fragmented and unfocused research, where interpretation reigns supreme and empirical evidence is devalued. Finding a balance between these two extremes is crucial for rigorous and meaningful research.”
This revised version aims to:

• Maintain a formal and objective tone: By using third-person language and avoiding personal pronouns, the passage presents the information in a more detached and scholarly manner.
• Improve clarity and conciseness: The language has been refined to enhance readability and avoid redundancy.
• Address the potential limitations of excessive subjectivity: The passage acknowledges the potential pitfalls of overemphasizing subjectivity in research.
  This revised version aims to provide a clear and concise summary of the key points while maintaining a formal and objective tone.