USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Write a reply to this
Reply to Question 1(and ask substantial questions related to this, word limit 200)
Researcher bias is an inevitable aspect of scientific research due to the inherent human tendency to interpret data based on personal experience, cultural background, and cognitive inclinations. Although objectivity is a cornerstone of good research, complete neutrality is hard to achieve. Instead, researchers must take steps to reduce bias and embrace the role of subjectivity in specific research approaches.
To maintain objectivity, researchers have to employ a number of methodological safeguards. Firstly, employing standardized data collection and analysis guidelines ensures consistency (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Secondly, triangulation employing various sources or means for cross-verifying findings may reduce chances of bias affecting results (Patton, 2015). Thirdly, reflexivity, or self-reflection upon one’s own bias, is necessary for identifying possibilities of influencing interpretation of data (Berger, 2015). Reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, and external audits can also enhance objectivity.
Even though complete eradication of subjectivity is not possible, recognition and explicit acknowledgment increase research validity. Subjective impressions, for instance, are cherished in qualitative research as an integral part of the interpretative process. The researchers’ own experiences may add depth to empathy with participants’ meaning, provided biases are uncovered and addressed satisfactorily (Moustakas, 1994).
Subjectivity is not inherently bad but instead a strengths feature of particular research paradigms. With narrative and ethnographic research as well as overall qualitative research, subjectivity adds depth to analysis in data from interpretations by the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Subjectivity allows richer, site-specific knowledge possibly inaccessible to totally objective approaches. However, within experimental research as well as overall quantitative research, eliminating bias becomes vital to assure replicability as well as validity.
Finally, objectivity-subjectivity tension is a product of research method. Researchers must be vigilant to observe their own biases and apply methods for mitigating excessive influence while being aware of the multifaceted role of subjectivity in certain methodologies. Through reflexivity and methodological rigor, researchers can enhance the validity of studies and contribute worthwhile knowledge to their respective fields.
References
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage publications.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage publications.
Reply to Question 2 (and ask substantial questions related to this, word limit 200)
At its core, the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is the centrality of the individual. Objectivity demands the scholar extract themself from the topic at hand, whereas subjectivity relies on the amalgamation of all things that make a person (personal experiences, inherited truths, etc.) (Pajo, 2023). There is no real method to ensure a researcher does not allow their own personal agenda to collude the fact-based nature of their research. In fact, a researcher composing their research question most likely had their interest piqued on the topic because of a personal experience with said topic. For this reason, I think that researchers can maintain objectivity while being guided by their subjective experiences because of the demand to retrieve evidence/research to reach a conclusion. To assume all subjectivity could be eliminated is assuming that all human behavior can be measured and accounted.
An example relevant to my field is the use of subjectivity in making objectively sound real estate decisions. In commercial real estate development, the initial decision-making process—such as identifying valuable land for acquisition—is often based on a broker’s perception of what constitutes a desirable area and what potential buyers may want. Many real estate decisions begin with personal observations, such as frequenting an area and noticing an available lot. This is the first step in acquiring property: identifying a potential investment opportunity (First National Realty Partners, n.d.). However, the justification for acquiring a property relies heavily on quantitative research (Garner, 2012). Real estate analytics use historical data, including traffic patterns, foot-traffic studies, and road expansion plans, to evaluate a property’s value. While a broker’s initial interest in a property may stem from personal intuition or experience, the final decision is ultimately driven by data. Additionally, qualitative indicators—such as observing new infrastructure projects like roads or schools—can signal future property appreciation, further supporting the decision-making process.
In conclusion, I believe objectivity can be maintained when a researcher acknowledges and understands their own subjectivity. As previously mentioned, every aspect of research can be questioned for personal bias, especially when considering why a researcher chose a particular topic in the first place. However, to maintain objectivity, a researcher must substantiate their subjective insights with empirical evidence before drawing conclusions. This reliance on research and data ensures that objectivity remains at the core of their work.
References
First National Realty Partners. (n.d.). Steps to buying commercial real estate. First National Realty Partners.
Garner, G. (2012, March). Using quantitative analytical techniques when researching real estate – Applied example [PDF]. Lincoln University, New Zealand. CiteSeerX.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=7939dc64f10e39d1a33f61f38382e4962b371b10
Pajo, B. (2023). Introduction to research methods: A hands-on approach (2nd ed.). SAGE Vantage.
Reply question 3( Note I got this comment on my Post, can you please answer the asked question)
This is a great post! I especially think your explanation on how researchers can reduce bias through triangulation was a great way to explain how multiple layers of authentication is helpful for deducing how much the concluded facts can “withstand.” I also completely agree with how you discuss that human emotion may need to be sometimes involved in research methods, especially when it relates to strengthening the methods of retrieving qualitative data.
To bring the conversation back to your work with cybersecurity, I am interested to know what type of research is spurred in your cybersecurity role that relies on the daily interactions researchers have? To elaborate, in my post I mentioned how one of the most subjective things researchers do is actually their process of choosing their field of research. I can imagine that if someone in your company goes through an instance of their bank account being hacked into, they would be inspired to research methods to prevent this from happening again. Then would follow the objective research to find this solution. So do you see any subjectivity in the way your research is assigned?
The original post for the above comment( notes just for information)
Research Bias
Research bias reduction happens through triangulation, as this approach uses multiple data sources, various researchers, and multiple methodologies to prove the study results. Study designs and hypotheses must be submitted for pre-registration because this protects researchers from choosing results that match their anticipated findings (Jordan et al., 2025). My cybersecurity field needs objective research to determine threat intelligence vulnerabilities and system weaknesses. Researchers running biased analyses or collections of data may establish incorrect security procedures that threaten national security.
Significance of subjectivity
Some research methods recognize the beneficial value that subjective insights contribute to knowledge creation, even while requiring objective analysis. Qualitative research methods enable researchers to analyze social subjects by collecting data on human experiences. In his work, Pajo (2023) explains that researchers in both ethnographic research and in-depth interview studies should adopt an empathetic approach by understanding participant experiences rather than relying solely on detached analytical methods.
Educational researchers must comprehend how students with learning disabilities experience literacy intervention programs (Rudolph et al., 2019). Realistically, reading development is affected by psychological elements and emotional forces, which an objective reading approach would fail to identify.
Researchers must identify their biases before applying reflexivity, which involves an in-depth analysis of their research impact to achieve an objective-subjective balance. Research biases can be minimized through detailed field observation recording and double-blind methodology while expanding analysis participation to diverse groups. My career in cybersecurity, combined with business roles and educational positions, benefits from identifying biases because this enables data-based decisions and comprehensive human understanding. Subjectivity should be effectively managed to enhance research findings, while objectivity stands as the leading principle.
References
Jordan, P. J., Troth, A. C., & Yan, H. (2025). Objective and subjective measurement in applied business settings: Improving research in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 50(1), 8-31.
Pajo, B. (2023). Introduction to research methods: A hands-on approach (2nd ed.). SAGE Vantage.
Rudolph, C. W., Kunze, F., & Zacher, H. (2019). Getting objective about subjective age: introduction to a special issue. Work, Aging, and Retirement, 5(4), 265-272.
