“Write short note : Rapport and objectivity in social science research.” (1984)

Bronislaw Malinowski, credited with founding participant observation as a systematic method, showed that fieldwork demands the researcher build genuine closeness with the people studied, even while claiming the discipline’s mantle of scientific detachment.
Rapport — the trust, empathy, and closeness a researcher builds with respondents or informants — is often indispensable for eliciting honest, rich, valid data, especially in fieldwork, ethnography, and unstructured interviewing.
Objectivity requires precisely the opposite posture at the point of interpretation: sufficient analytical distance to interpret what is observed without simply absorbing or endorsing the informants’ own point of view uncritically.
The genuine methodological tension between these two requirements, and how reflexive fieldwork practice manages rather than eliminates it, is the concern of this note.
- “To grasp the native’s point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world.” — Bronislaw Malinowski
This was Malinowski’s own statement of ethnography’s goal — and achieving it is unimaginable without rapport, since no informant reveals such a vision to someone they do not trust.

Respondents who do not trust a researcher tend to give guarded, superficial, or socially desirable answers rather than accounts that reflect their actual beliefs and practices — the classic risk of interview data collected without adequate groundwork.
Pauline V. Young observed that interviewing carries an inescapable subjective element precisely because its quality depends on the rapport built between researcher and subject — without it, communication barriers distort the very data the researcher is trying to record.
In participant observation, access to a community’s private rituals and unguarded behaviour — the texture of everyday life structured instruments cannot capture — is granted only once trust in the observer’s presence is established.
Poor rapport does not merely produce thin data; it produces misleading data, since respondents under-trusting an outsider will often perform a defensive version of themselves rather than reveal actual practice.

Rapport built too far in the direction of closeness carries its own danger — the researcher begins to see the field entirely through the informants’ own categories, losing the comparative and critical standpoint sociological analysis requires.
This is the classic anthropological worry of “going native”: sustained immersion and personal loyalty to informants can lead a researcher to uncritically adopt their worldview, suppress inconvenient observations out of obligation, or lose the capacity to see what is analytically significant because it has become too familiar to notice.
Where rapport tips into over-identification, the researcher risks becoming an advocate for the group’s self-understanding rather than an analyst of it — compromising the very objectivity the research was meant to produce.
The tension is therefore two-sided: too little rapport starves the researcher of valid data, while too much collapses the analytical distance that turns observation into sociological knowledge.

Reflexive fieldwork practice does not claim to resolve this tension once and for all; it manages it through deliberate procedural habits maintained throughout fieldwork.
Keeping a field diary that separates raw observational notes from the researcher’s own emerging interpretations lets a fieldworker track exactly where personal closeness may have coloured an inference — even Malinowski’s own private diary, published posthumously, revealed emotional entanglements his published ethnographies had suppressed, underscoring how real this risk is even for the method’s founder.
Building rapport with multiple, structurally distinct informants rather than a single faction guards against capture by any one group’s partial perspective, restoring a comparative vantage point within the fieldwork itself.
Periodic withdrawal from the field, triangulation with other data sources, and peer debriefing at the research institution serve the same function — reintroducing critical distance without abandoning the trust already built.
Bourdieu’s notion of reflexive sociology captures the logic well: objectivity is achieved not by pretending the researcher stands outside the field’s social relations, but by turning analytical scrutiny back onto the researcher’s own position within those relations, including the rapport itself.

The same tension has migrated into digital and online ethnography, where researchers building rapport with respondents through sustained participation in online communities face an added complication — the self-presentation both researcher and informants perform online is itself curated, making the line between empathetic engagement and uncritical immersion harder to locate than in face-to-face fieldwork.

Rapport and objectivity are not opposed goals to be traded off once at the design stage but a continuous tension to be actively managed throughout fieldwork.
Too little rapport yields data too guarded to be valid; too much risks an analysis too captured to be objective — both failures undermine the research in different ways.
The mark of skilled fieldwork lies not in avoiding closeness with informants but in building it deliberately while retaining the reflexive discipline to step back and interpret critically what that closeness has revealed.

Write short note : Rapport and objectivity in social science research.

Download PDF