The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time.

Interpretations of data in qualitative research may be biased for many reasons. This paper explores three commonly overlooked problems from a rather positivist point of view and deals with them mainly through the lens of cognitive psychology and survey methodology. The first problem is that researchers and readers of the research tend to trust retrospective data too much even though it is known that our memory is highly reconstructive. The second problem is that we often create interpretations too quickly and (...) do not ground them in data well. The third problem is inappropriately generalising our findings because we underrate the variability of the phenomena studied. The aim is not to employ quantitative criteria in qualitative research but to show that especially in cases where we seek more objectivity (e.g., factual information about events) and less about the subjective phenomenal world (e.g., how people perceive these events from today’s perspective), cognitive psychology or survey methodology can offer valuable insights. Recommendations about what researchers should be careful of and how to increase the objectivity of the interpretations are offered. (shrink)