Historically, bias has been viewed as a problem with qualitative research, in large part because the researcher is often a qualitative study’s primary (or, in some cases, only) research “instrument.” Even most constructivists who reject traditional notions of scientific objectivity want to produce reasonably accurate reconstructions of their research participants’ interpretations of the social world. In fact, presenting accurate reconstructions is one thing constructivists mean when they talk about a study’s trustworthiness. Various procedures have been developed to minimize bias and ensure trustworthiness. The Formative Influences Timeline (FIT) is one such procedure. This article provides a brief history of bias in qualitative research, describes the FIT and how to use it, and reviews nonprofit research studies that either employed—or could have employed—the FIT to produce data relatively uncontaminated by researchers’ a priori assumptions. The article concludes by acknowledging limitations of the FIT.
AbouAssiK. (2012). Hands in the pockets of mercurial donors: NGO response to shifting funding priorities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 584–602.
2.
Academy of Management Journal. (2009). From the Editors—For the lack of boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
3.
BiesA. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1057–1086.
4.
BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and methods. Prentice Hall.
5.
CarnochanS.SamplesM.MeyersM.AustinM. (2014). Performance measurement challenges in nonprofit human services organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(6), 1014–1032.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions. Sage.
7.
DaleE. (2018). Financial management and charitable giving in gay and lesbian households. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4), 836–855.
8.
DillardC. (2000). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 661–681.
9.
DonmoyerR. (1985). Cognitive anthropology and research on effective principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 31–57.
10.
EnglertB.ThalerJ.HelmigB. (2020). Fit themes in volunteering: How do volunteers perceive person-environment fit. . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 336–356.
11.
FisherR. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.
12.
FreemanD. (1983). Margaret Mead and American Samoa. The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Harvard University Press.
13.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
14.
GlaserB.StraussA. (2017) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge. (Original work published 1967)
15.
HardingS. (2005). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” In CuddA.AndersonR. (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 218–236). Blackwell Publishing.
16.
JonesJ. A. (2018). The unseen lens: The relationship between philanthropists’ developmental meaning making and philanthropic activity. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(4), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21299
17.
KissaneR.GingerichJ. (2004). Do you see what I see? Nonprofit and resident perceptions of urban neighborhood problems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 311–333.
18.
KnutsenW.BrowerR. (2010). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary sector organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 588–610.
19.
KuhnT. (2012, c2000, 1970, 1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
20.
LatherP. (1986a). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place Interchange, 17, 63–84.
21.
LatherP. (1986b). Research as praxis. Harvard Education Review, 56(3), 257–277.
MalinowskiB. (2013, c 1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Waveland Press.
24.
MalterudK.SiersmaV. D.GuassoraA. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760.
McNameeL.PetersonB. (2016). High stakes volunteer commitment: A qualitative analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(2), 275–294.
27.
MeadM. (2001). Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive [sic] youth for Western civilization. HarperCollins Publishers Inc. (Original work published 1930)
28.
PattonM. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE.
29.
Pearson-DaweL. (2017). The white elephant in the room: Exploring a model of white identity management (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database. (UMI No. UFE0051549).
30.
PowdermakerH. (1967). Stranger and friend. The way of an anthropologist. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
31.
ShankmanP. (2009). The trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an anthropological controversy. University of Wisconsin Press.
32.
SpradleyJ. (2016). The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press. (Original work published 1979)
33.
Tuhiwai SmithL. (2012). Deconlonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. Zed Books. (Original work published 1999)
34.
WilsonS. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
35.
WrightH. (2003). An endarkened feminist epistemology? Identity, difference, and the politics of representation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 197–214.
