“There are lies, damned lies and statistics!”

Mark Twain popularized this statement in his autobiographical work, Chapters from my Autobiography to describe situations when there is a doubtful use of numbers/statistics employed persuasively to bolster weak arguments.

The same is also true for information gathered via Qualitative Research many a times.

Erroneous conclusions from biased studies unfortunately guide our country’s policies and administrative initiatives as well as majorly influence our historical, political, social and economic narratives.

Therefore, in order to correct this, we need take this issue head on.

Watch a brilliant talk on this on Sangam Talks:

Let’s take a brief look at what is exactly meant by Qualitative and Quantitative Research.

Qualitative Research was brought in as a solution to the gap/vacuum left in research methods that could not be filled by Quantitative Research methods since not everything that can be counted, counts.

It is concerned with deciphering human behavior by studying social reality of individuals, groups and cultures and dig out the ‘how and why’ solely from the informant’s perspective via methods of observation, interviews, case studies, etc. and the information is to be analyzed by applying the description given only by the informants and is to be reported as well in the informant’s language.

A researcher conducting qualitative research is not supposed to contrive the contexts of inquiry, it is to remain natural constantly and nothing is to be redefined or taken for granted.

An example of it is- A research is undertaken to provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of religion based education vs normal education.

On the other hand, Quantitative research is concerned with unearthing facts about social phenomena, and assumes a fixed and measurable reality, numerical comparisons and statistical inferences are used to analyze data collected by measuring things and reportage is also statistical analysis.

An example of it is – How much time on an average a worker takes to complete a certain task in a certain factory.

Dr Sarita Seshagiri introduces us to the evolution and chronology of qualitative research in India through this wonderful talk on Sangam Talks Youtube channel.

Qualitative research began in the early 20th century in India when Census data was to be collected by the British which focused on race and physical anthropology only and this was the beginning of the so called “caste” studies.

It was carried out mostly in the tribal population areas of north-east, central and south India. As it was commissioned by the British and conducted by the British only, therefore it paved the way for foreign ethnographers to enter who had a clear missionary purpose.

In due course, in order to describe/define our Varna system, the word ‘caste’ was used which has been copy pasted from the Portuguese word ‘Casta’ was a doctrine of ‘purity of blood’ which verges on the concept of ‘Race’. Before 1500 it was used to refer to type/breed of plant or animal but post that it also began to be applied to mean a species of human marked by religious descent.

Let’s understand the history of this contemptuous word ‘Casta’.

In the words of Professor Sumit Guha of the University of Texas, two Iberian Empires, the Spanish in the Americas and Portuguese in Asia controlled all trans-oceanic trade of modern Europeans and several Iberian kingdoms had started religious persecution of Jews in the 1300s. Many converted under duress but much to the dismay of “old Christian” churchmen, they began to rise in Church and royal service as well as tax collectors they became the envy of poorer Christians.

The clerics and plebeians thus came together and organized pogroms of these ‘new converts’ and justified it by saying that only ‘old Christians’ were worthy of respect and favor in in Spanish and Portuguese society.

It was followed up with the diktat that these new converts to Christianity should be carefully watched and vigilantly excluded from offices of status. So there was an ethnic and social stratification taking place.

The phrase “eso me viene de casta” meant as “it’s in my blood”.

Thus the doctrine that all humans are redeemable through Christ was thrown out conveniently to priorities religious descent above spiritual redemption.

They applied the same theory erroneously and fatally to our Varna system which is entirely different and unique concepts which are fluid and based on professional expertise.

Neither does the term Casta correspond with Jaati. As Jaati refers to “Samaanaprasavaatmika Jaatih” translated it means similar birth source which stems from the Nyaya Sutra.

Udbhija (coming out of ground like plants), Andaja (coming out of eggs like birds and reptiles), Pindaja (mammals) and Ushmaj (reproducing due to temperature and ambient conditions like virus, bacteria etc).

Similarly, various animals like elephant, lion, rabbits etc form different ‘Jaanwar Jaati’. In same manner, entire humanity forms one ‘Maanav Jaati’, there is also an oft used term “Sampoorna Maanav Jaati”. A particular Jaati will have similar physical characteristics, cannot change from one Jaati to another and cannot cross-breed. Thus Jaati is creation of Ishwar or God.

Gotra is used to trace lineage to ancient ancestor and is applied only during marriages so that no inter Gotra marriages take place as it amounts to incest if there is a common ancestor. Otherwise it is never used except during certain Vedic rituals, etc.

So since this has been cleared, let us return to Dr Seshagiri’s talk on critique of Qualitative Research methods.

So as we have read above how Western theoretical constructs were shoved down our throats by Westerners, Dr Seshagiri cites a real example of biased presentation of data.

In a research study that was undertaken on Farmer suicides in India, a well-researched report was presented that went in to the root causes of the same, however, certain biased researchers for their own respective studies on gender and women empowerment, referred selectively to portions of it to make ludicrous claims that women who address their husbands by their first names are empowered, thus implying that the opposite would mean non empowered women in socio-politico-gender environment.

Why is the Indian cultural perspectives and context completely ignored by these biased researchers?

Dr Seshagiri states that it is important for a researcher to clearly write it out at the beginning of his/her report as to what bias he/she harbours and print a disclaimer on it that it could have influenced her research work at some point, so read it with caution!

The issue and effects of foreign funded studies with dubious motives and conveniently chosen samples to manipulating informants and thrusting own interpretations in reports by researchers is also unmasked by Dr. Seshagiri citing one of her own personal example.

Apart from this reason for such biased reports, Dr Seshagiri also lists a few other reasons like quick turnaround time to submit reports, to justify the researcher’s methodologies and methods of research, etc.

She emphasises on a very important point as to why this needs to be rectified immediately, reason being that an unethical or biased researcher is not a one off exception but it is infact cyclic and academically hereditary via Mentor-Mentee relationship, etc.

Dr Seshagiri then ends this talk with a solution to this by detailing the need to be true to the informant’s version and ethical analysis of data in context of the prevailing culture and society of the study, etc.

Do listen in to this wonderful talk that ends with insightful questions by the viewers and Dr. Seshagiri’s enlightening and uplifting solutions for the same.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.