Volume 3, No.

3 – September 2002

Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

Carl Ratner

Abstract: This article argues that subjective Key words: subjectivity, objectivity, postmodernism,
processes, social relations, and artifacts (including hermeneutics, subject-object
research instruments and methods) enable
1. Subjectivism and Objectivism
researchers to objectively comprehend psychological
phenomena. This position opposes the postmodernist 2. Objectivistic and Subjectivistic Qualitative
contention that subjective processes, social Research: Empirical Examples
relations, and artifacts interfere with objectivity. The
article outlines a hermeneutic procedure for References
interpreting narratives in a way that comprehends Author
the real psychological meanings that are expressed. Citation
This procedure is contrasted with an impressionistic
summary of a narrative which imposes the
researcher’s theoretical perspective on the protocol
instead of elucidating the subject’s meanings.

1. Subjectivism and Objectivism

Qualitative methodology recognizes that the subjectivity of the researcher is intimately involved
in scientific research. Subjectivity guides everything from the choice of topic that one studies, to
formulating hypotheses, to selecting methodologies, and interpreting data. In qualitative
methodology, the researcher is encouraged to reflect on the values and objectives he brings to
his research and how these affect the research project. Other researchers are also encouraged to
reflect on the values that any particular investigator utilizes. [1]
A key issue that arises with the recognition of subjectivity is how it affects objectivity. Two
positions have been articulated. Many qualitative researchers counterpoise subjectivity and
objectivity. Objectivity is said to negate subjectivity since it renders the observer a passive
recipient of external information, devoid of agency. And the researcher’s subjectivity is said to
negate the possibility of objectively knowing a social psychological world. The investigator’s
values are said to define the world that is studied. One never really sees or talks about the
world, per se. One only sees and talks about what one’s values dictate. A world may exist
beyond values, but it can never be known as it is, only as values shape our knowledge of it. [2]
GERGEN (2001) outlines this subjectivist position under the moniker of postmodernism, which
he contrasts with modernism. However modernists such as BERKELEY and HUME proposed
exactly the same doctrine centuries ago. GERGEN states:
"For modernists, the world simply is out there, available for observation. Within the texts of
postmodernism, however, there are no grounds for such a presumption. There is no means
of declaring that the world is either out there or reflected objectively by an `in here’" (p.805).
"To tell the truth, on this account, is not to furnish an accurate picture of what actually
happened but to participate in a set of social conventions …To be objective is to play by the
rules within a given tradition of social practices …To do science is not to hold a mirror to

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627)
 FQS 3(3) Carl Ratner: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

nature but to participate actively in the interpretive conventions and practices of a particular
culture. The major question that must be asked of scientific accounts, then, is not whether they are
true to nature but what these accounts … offer to the culture more generally" (p.806).
"A postmodern empiricism would replace the ’truth game’ with a search for culturally useful
theories and findings with significant cultural meaning" (p.808).
"Arguments about what is really real are futile" (p.806). [3]
Perception, cognition, and communication are mired in a web of values that prevents getting
beyond these. Consequently, the criteria of truth and objectivity denote congruence with
cultural values, symbols, and terms; they do not denote apprehending a world beyond the
individual (and his culture). The limitations of this perspective are obvious. If Catholics accept
Vatican dogma that Christ was born from a virgin mother and that his body levitated to heaven
after his death, they are objective and even scientific according to GERGEN’S definition, since
they are playing by the rules of the game. Germans who accepted Nazi propaganda that Jews
were genetically inferior to Aryans would also have been objective and scientific! Science,
religion, and ideology are indistinguishable once all values, cognition, and social relations are
construed as distorting mechanisms rather than as potentially augmenting one’s understanding
of social and physical matters. [4]
In subjectivism, all viewpoints are simply another way of approaching a thing. But none of them
delivers any information about the thing itself. My view that Santa Claus is a myth and your
view that he is a real person have equal truth value—namely, none at all. Whether one favors
one or the other is simply a matter of how interesting they appear as cultural expressions. [5]
Similarly, I may think women enjoy being raped while you think they hate it. Neither indicates
what women truly feel. They are simply our views of the topic. They are to be judged according
to what meanings they contribute to the culture. If my opinion imparts a cultural meaning that
women are happy and well adjusted while yours contributes a cultural meaning that women are
frightened and angry and maladjusted, we select among the two views on that level.1 [6]
Subjectivism is often regarded as the sine qua non of qualitative methodology. However, this is
untrue. Qualitative methodology has an objectivist strand as well. Objectivism states that the
researcher’s subjectivity can enable her to accurately comprehend the world as it exists in
itself. Of course, subjectivity can bias the researcher and preclude objectively understanding a
subject’s psychological reality. However, this is not inevitable. In fact, one of the advantages of
recognizing subjectivity is to reflect on whether it facilitates or impedes objective
comprehension. Distorting values can then be replaced by values that enhance objectivity. [7]
Objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity because it argues that objective knowledge
requires active, sophisticated subjective processes—such as perception, analytical reasoning,
synthetic reasoning, logical deduction, and the distinction of essences from appearances.
Conversely, subjective processes can enhance objective comprehension of the world. [8]
Objectivism was enunciated by DILTHEY (1833-1911) in his articulation of the cultural sciences
(Geisteswissenschaften). The key procedure in the cultural sciences was a qualitative hermeneutic
interpretation of life expressions (Lebensäusserungen). Hermeneutic interpretation requires
that the researcher employ an active, sophisticated subjectivity to objectively comprehend
subjective experience (Erlebnis) in life expressions. Verstehen is to achieve Allgemeingültigkeit, or
valid interpretations, of Erlebnis. DILTHEY’S objectivist approach to hermeneutics continued its
earlier use during the Reformation when theologists employed it to identify the true original
meaning of biblical texts. The objectivist sense is also contained in the etymological origin of
hermeneutics. The term derives from Hermes, the Greek messenger god who helped humans
understand what the gods were trying to say. Hermeneutics in social science is similarly to help

1
One’s Erlebnis is not necessarily fully known to oneself. It may be unconscious (cf. RATNER, 1994). DILTHEY
employed the term Besserverstehen to denote the process whereby an observer can know a subject’s Erlebnis
more accurately than the subject himself knows it. This is similar to a physician knowing what is bothering the
patient better than the patient knowing what is wrong with himself.

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

 FQS 3(3) Carl Ratner: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

an observer clearly understand (disambiguate) what the subjective experience of another is, i.e., what
their expressions mean. [9]
Objectivity presupposes an independent reality that can be grasped. If there is no independent
reality, or if reality cannot be apprehended, or if reality is merely the concoction of the observer,
then the notion of objectivity is moot. [10]
The psychology of people is independent of the observer just as physical objects are. Just as
the moon is there and has certain characteristics independently of the astronomer, so my wife
has certain emotions about her mother independently of me. It is incumbent on me to understand my
wife’s emotions as they exist for her. If I do not understand my wife’s emotional state as it is—if
I try to construct it as meaningful in my terms rather than as meaningful for her—I will pay
dearly. Of course, some of her emotions are generated in part by my acts. Nevertheless, her
emotions are HER Erlebnis and I must objectively understand them as they are FOR HER, as
her psychological reality.2 [11]
The observer may be correct or incorrect in assessing peoples’ psychology. Just as the observer
may accurately perceive or misperceive an optical illusion, so he may perceive or misperceive
peoples’ psychology. There must be empirical criteria to establish the degree of
accuracy/objectivity with which one perceives peoples’ psychology, just as there are empirical
criteria to determine the degree of illusion in the perception of objects. [12]
Of course people must agree about what constitutes evidence. And they use socially constructed
instruments to obtain evidence. However, their agreement and measurement concerns what is
real. When physicists agree that their instruments have measured certain properties of atoms,
they are not simply talking about their measurement operations, per se, or how the properties
are mere reflections of those operations. They are not trapped in a web of subjective processes that
distance and distort phenomena. Whereas postmodernists are fascinated by the fact that their
data reflect their theories and methods, realists emphasize how their theories, methods, and
data reflect real things. The objective information about real things which social and subjective
processes (including measurement) generate is reflected in real results such as producing
nuclear weapons, which really kill people, and medical procedures, which really cure disease
(cf. MERTON, 1972 for an incisive refutation of the subjectivist position that one’s values
insulate oneself from the world). Theories, methods, and conclusions which are incompatible
with real results are winnowed out so that better ones can be cultivated. In contrast, postmodernism
smugly assumes that social constructions are self-confirming, reality beyond social constructions
does not exist or (what amounts to the same thing) is unknowable and inconsequential, and
any construction is tenable as long as it commands interest. [13]
Objectivism is the highest form of respect for the subjects we are studying. It respects their
psychological reality as something meaningful and important which must be accurately
comprehended. Subjectivism either denies a psychological reality to subjects, or else makes it
unknowable. The psychology of other people is clouded by the subjectivity of the observer and
is not recognized for what it (truly) is. [14]
To objectively comprehend peoples’ psychology, the researcher must organize his subjectivity
appropriately. Hypothetical concepts must be well-defined so that they can be identified
unambiguously. An appropriate methodology must be adopted in order to solicit complete,
meaningful evidence that can be used to test the validity of hypothetical concepts. And the
evidence must be analyzed through sensitive, systematic procedures which can detect its features

2
According to postmodernists, we can’t know what effects our values really have on culture because that would be an
old-fashioned modernist attempt at trying to understand social reality. We can only talk about the effects our values
have as we construe them through linguistic conventions. But talk, like perception, does not refer to any reality
beyond linguistic conventions. When I state that women enjoy being raped, you may construe this as leading to
suppression of women while I construe it as a positive recognition of women’s adaptability. There is no real
significance to my opinion that could be tested and rejected if necessary. For postmodernists, language is like a set
of Russian dolls with each utterance shrouding the previous one in a web of meanings that insulate us from social
and physical reality.

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

 FQS 3(3) Carl Ratner: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

and compare them to the characteristics of hypothetical concepts. In this way, the researcher
can be warranted in believing that her concepts illuminate the true nature of peoples’ psychology.
Nebulous hypothetical concepts, insufficient or inappropriate behavioral evidence, and arbitrary
analyses vitiate objectivity and allow the researcher to impose her theoretical constructs on the
data. [15]

2. Objectivistic and Subjectivistic Qualitative Research: Empirical Examples

Let us examine how subjective acts of a qualitative researcher, interpreting statements in a

document, can elucidate the true nature of a person’s psychology. [16]
The first step is to identify "meaning units" within the document. These are coherent and
distinct meanings embedded within the protocol. They can be composed of any number of
words. One word may constitute a meaning unit. Several sentences may also constitute a unit.
A meaning unit may contain a complex idea. It simply must be coherent and distinctive from
other ideas. The meaning unit must preserve the psychological integrity of the idea being
expressed. It must neither fragment the idea into meaningless, truncated segments nor confuse
it with other ideas that express different themes. [17]
It will be instructive to illustrate this point by identifying the meaning units in an actual interview
protocol. I will use as data an account that was published by HIGGINS, POWER, and KOHLBERG
(1984). The subject was asked whether a student is morally obliged to offer a ride to another
student in the school (whom he did not know) who needs a ride to an important college interview. I
shall bracket meaning units that express issues related to the moral obligation of doing favors
for strangers.
"[I don’t think he has any obligation]. If I was in his place and I [didn’t know the kid too well],
[if I wanted to sleep late], [I don’t feel that it is my responsibility] to go drive somebody to
their interview, [it is up to them, they are responsible]. If I were going there, [if I had an
interview there at the same time, sure I would]. But if I had the opportunity to sleep late and
didn’t know the kid at all, I wouldn’t ...
[People seem to think as long as you have a car they have a ride], and in my opinion it
doesn’t operate that way. [If I wanted to give him a ride, I will give him a ride], [if I am going
there and they want to go there]. It is [my car and I am the one who is driving], and I don’t
see why I should give him a ride.
It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t give them a ride, but [if I don’t know them well enough], I think
[just out of protection for myself and my property], I wouldn’t. I think people may say that
[being responsible to yourself is more important than other people]. I think there is [an
extent where you put yourself first]. And when you [believe in putting yourself first, like I do]
... [I don’t feel I should be obligated to somebody else’s work, especially if I don’t know
them], I don’t think I should give them a ride." (p. 90) [18]
After the meaning units have been identified, they are paraphrased by the researcher in
"central themes." If the meaning unit is "Oh hell," the researcher may construe this as "anger."
"Anger" will be the theme, or central theme, of the unit. [19]
The central themes should represent the psychological significance of the meaning units. For
instance, when the subject surmises that if he wanted to sleep late he need not worry about
driving a schoolmate to an interview, it seems that he is emphasizing his own desire over other
people’s and that this is a form of self-gratification. Similarly, when he says that it’s his car and
he is the one driving, the implication is that he can use his property however he wishes and is
under no obligation to use it to help another person. Central themes involve interpreting the
psychological significance of the meaning unit that is often not explicitly stated. However, the
inference must be consistent with the body of statements. [20]
The meaning units of the statement on moral reasoning can be represented by the following
central themes:

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

 FQS 3(3) Carl Ratner: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

• no moral obligation to drive/help—(meaning unit: I don’t think he has any obligation")

• don’t help distant social relations—(meaning unit: "don’t know him well")
• self-gratification—(meaning unit: "sleep late"; "put yourself first")
• self-responsibility—(meaning unit: "everyone responsible for own self"; "not responsible
for others")
• help if it’s convenient for self — (meaning unit: "if he & I were going to the same place")
• people use each other—(meaning unit: "people think as long as you have a car they
have a ride")
• private property can be used as one desires without obligation—(meaning unit: "it’s my
car")
• self-protection—(meaning unit: "don’t know people well"; "out of protection for myself")
[21]
The central themes are the significant psychological elements expressed in the narrative.
Although central themes are constructions of the researcher that go beyond the subject’s literal
words, they are consistent with these and represent their significance. In this sense, the central
themes objectively summarize the psychological meanings that the subject expresses in the
narrative (cf. RATNER 2002). This procedure avoids impressionism that is common in qualitative
methodology, whereby the researcher simply declares meanings without grounding these in
empirical evidence in the form of the subject’s statements. [22]
It will be illustrative to examine an instance of qualitative research in which the researcher’s
values were allowed to generate a conclusion that was not empirically grounded. The contrast
with the foregoing example will highlight what objectivity consists in and how it can be achieved. [23]
The impressionistic research was conducted by ROWE, WERTSCH, and KOSYAEVA (2002).
It was guided by the theoretical orientation that individuals construct personal meanings about
things rather than reflect social meanings. Social meanings are said to be impersonal, reified,
monolithic, and static. Individuals are said to be active and to never merely receive social meanings.
Instead, individuals always transform social meanings into personal significations. This testifies
to their activity, creativity, and agency. The authors present a brief conversation to document
this point of view. Let us examine it to see whether their conclusions are empirically validated.
[24]
The authors observed patrons in the Winter Palace museum, St. Petersburg, looking at a 19th
century painting that depicts the Winter Palace and its locale. One conversation between two
patrons went as follows:
"K: See here? It’s the Winter Palace, and in 1985 I lived in St. Petersburg for a summer with
a friend in her apartment down this street here.
S: You lived right there?
K: Yes, well, not right in that building but down the street here a little way and I would walk
down to the square everyday." (p.105) [25]
From this minimal interchange, the authors conclude that the two patrons have transformed
social meanings into personal ones. They state:
"Instead of bringing autobiographical narratives into contact with official culture as part of an
attempt to enrich the latter, it seems to us that this [narrative] involves an escape from the
public memory sphere…These visitors are refusing to engage in the museum’s public
memory space … It is meaning making on one’s own terms" (p.106). [26]
The question is, do the patrons say, or even imply, this? To refuse and escape from something
is to actively reject it. One has to specifically express a dislike and a deliberate avoidance.
Patron K. simply made a casual remark that she lived on a street that appeared in the painting.
This in no way implies that she is escaping from the public memory sphere, refusing to engage
in public memory, or making an idiosyncratic meaning. Patron S. was even less expressive.

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

 FQS 3(3) Carl Ratner: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

She simply asked a single, simple clarifying question of K. There is no evidence that the strong
terms the authors use (escape, refusal, making own meanings) correspond to K’s or S’s words
or intentions. Much more substantial evidence is necessary to justify an interpretation that an
escape or refusal is being signified. [27]
Even making a personal remark about the painting is not necessarily making one’s own
meaning. The modern era is highly individualistic and people often look for personal issues in
social, political, religious, and economic events. It is common for Americans to focus upon the
personalities and sex lives of politicians or the cooking recipes of their wives. Such obfuscation
of important political issues is encouraged by the posturing of politicians and the superficial,
sensationalistic reporting of the news media. Consequently, there is nothing novel, creative, or
idiosyncratic about people raising personal issues in relation to public phenomena such as
paintings (RATNER 1997, 2002). [28]
The contrast between the two examples I have presented illustrates the flaws of subjectivism
and a step toward making interpretation objective. It illustrates how the active subjectivity of the
researcher can elicit and work on complex data (statements) to elucidate their psychological
significance. Such objective interpretation will be corroborated by behavioral results in the way
that individuals eventually act. Subjectivism will be also exposed by behavioral results which
contradict its arbitrary conclusions. If qualitative methodology emphasizes this distinction and
strives to direct researchers’ subjective processes to objectively study the psychology of subjects, it
will make a great contribution to social science. [29]

References
Gergen, Kenneth (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56,
803-813.
Higgins, Ann, Power, Clark, & Kohlberg, Lawrence (1984). The relationship of moral atmosphere to
judgments of responsibility. In William Kurtines & Jacob Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and
moral development (pp.74-106). New York: Wiley.
Merton, Robert (1972). Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. American
Journal of Sociology, 78, 9-47.
Ratner, Carl (1991). Vygotsky’s sociohistorical psychology and its contemporary applications. New York:
Plenum.
Ratner, Carl (1994). The unconscious: A perspective from sociohistorical psychology. Journal of Mind
and Behavior, 15, 323-342.
Ratner, Carl (1997). Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: Theoretical and empirical issues.
New York: Plenum.
Ratner, Carl (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York: Plenum.
Rowe, Shawn, Wertsch, James, & Kosyaeva, Tatyana (2002). Linking little narratives to big ones:
Narrative and public memory in history museums. Culture & Psychology, 8, 96-112.

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

 FQS 3(3) Carl Ratner: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology

Author

Carl RATNER has been developing a theoretical Contact:

and methodological approach to cultural
Carl Ratner
psychology for several decades. He has
published Cultural Psychology and Qualitative P.O. Box 1294
Methodology: Theoretical & Empirical Trinidad, CA, 95570, USA
Considerations (Plenum, 1997) and Cultural Email: [email protected]
Psychology: Theory & Method (Plenum, 2002).
RATNER currently gives workshops on
qualitative methodology especially in relation
to cultural psychology. His articles can be
read on his web site:
http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2.

Citation

Please cite this article as follows (and include paragraph numbers if necessary):
Ratner, Carl (2002, September). Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology [29
paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line
Journal], 3(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [Date of access:
Month Day, Year].

Copyright © 2002 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/