Voice

Voice in qualitative research refers to the multiple, and often conflicting, interpretive positions that must be engaged in the representation of data. There is a longstanding tradition in deductive research methods of amplifying the voice of the researcher to the limitation, or at times the exclusion, of the voices of those being studied. This approach is grounded in the conviction that objective perspectives are methodologically feasible and can yield a single univocal truth. In contrast to this position, a range of approaches, including post- structuralism, feminism, and various strands of post- modernism, call attention to the many intrinsic tensions that exist between the voices of researchers and the voices emerging from the data.

Social scientific research necessarily imposes a certain power over those being studied. Accordingly, qualitative investigation demands explicit consideration of the power relationships that exist between researchers and their “subjects.” Given that qualitative research frequently involves the study of marginalized persons, these relationships must be considered throughout the data collection, analysis, and writing processes. Typically, a researcher aims to point out certain features of “original” data. Theories of voice recognize that researchers' interpretations always differ to some degree or another from the original intended meanings. Furthermore, these theories generally hold that to engage voice is to take into account the varying ways in which reality is constructed and interpreted.

Ensuring that the voices of participants are holistically represented from the data requires paying attention to these constructions and interpretations and also epitomizes our ethical responsibility to our sources. That said, ethically sound research does not necessarily require validation of interpretations from collaborators; such validation might not be possible, particularly when data sources are textual or historical. Acknowledging and understanding participants from their own authentic positions is an integral component of data analysis and interpretation. However, the complexities of voice also necessitate a reconciliation of the reflexive and interpretive dynamics that expose meaning in the data, and that are genuinely and intrinsically present, so that research represents both the scientist and the participants.

Although explanations of the phenomenon of voice vary, they share a common conception that voice is more than a metaphor for individual perspective. As such, these explanations seek to understand voice as part of a reciprocal creation of meaning intrinsic to and inseparable from any kind of social scientific research. The qualitative researcher, therefore, must strive to understand the reality of voice as a process of the lived creation of meaning and not merely as a vague ethical gesture or an attempt to understand the opinion or perspective of one's sources. Ultimately, the notion of voice encompasses [Page 944]the interpretive confluence of participant and researcher and all of the reflexive processes following from it.