While qualitative research has been among the more open of academic disciplines, processes for analyzing qualitative data have remained dogmatic. Most qualitative data are “coded” by breaking it into pieces of information that stand alone or through contextualizing it as researchers see fit. Data analysis thus remains a process of deconstructing participant voices and reconstructing stories through sound bites, creating an acceptable form of “fake news” to obtain a seat at the research high table. This continues established traditions of denying “subalterns,” already less agentive in higher education spheres, the ability to speak as the voice of the participant is subjugated to the discourse community of the master. In this paper, we demonstrate how protocols for analyzing qualitative data represent the master’s voice as they draw from Euro-Western ways of knowing the world. Possibilities that foreground indigenous and critical epistemologies are presented as alternatives.

虽然定性研究是较为开放的学科之一，但分析定性数据的过程仍然是教条式的。大多数定性数据是通过将其分解为独立的信息片段或通过研究人员认为合适的上下文将其“编码”来进行“编码”的。因此，数据分析仍然是一个解构参与者声音并通过声音片段重建故事的过程，创造一种可接受的“假新闻”形式，以获得研究高桌的席位。这延续了既定的传统，即否认“下属”在高等教育领域已经不那么积极，因为参与者的声音被主人的话语社区征服了。在本文中，我们展示了用于分析定性数据的协议如何代表大师的声音，因为他们借鉴了欧洲-西方认识世界的方式。将土著和批判认识论作为前景的可能性被提出作为替代方案。