I recommend worrying less about philosophical stance and thinking more about things like your self-presentation to the research participants, as well as what you expect from the participants.

In particular, there are a number of different approaches that you can use with regard to neutrality, such as treating the participant as an informant, or taking a more active role in the interview, or explicitly using your "positionally" as part of who you are during the interview. The point is that you need to make choices about your role and the participants' role in the interview. So think about your research goals and how they will influence those choices.

Your dilemmas are nicely explored in this recent paper: 

Article Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research

You might enjoy Chapter 5, Meaning in Context and the Empowerment of Respondents, pages 117-135, in Elliot Mishler (1986), Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  This chapter outlines a spectrum of possibilities, including, informants and reporters, research collaborators and learners/actors and advocates.

I believe you can ask balanced sets of questions, so it does not appear that you have a predetermined point of view.  For example, consider the following:

What is the best thing that has happened?

What is the worst thing that has happened?

What has gone well to date?

What could be improved upon?

If an event has taken place, and some of the people at the site have reacted differently, ask them about what their reaction was, and after hearing this, you could ask about the other reaction.  I have been doing observation and interviewing for a long time.  There is no good reason to use slanted questions.  When different views exists, the person you are interviewing often knows of the other views and has a reaction to these views.  I hope this helps a little, Bruce

Hello Bruce

Thanks a lot such a descriptive reply. Yes , this book is amazing and it  is available.as a e-book.

So in your point of view  neutrality is something we can strive for in qualitative research even though you are an  integral part of it.. Discussing neutrality does not contradict its underline philosophical stance.  

I recommend worrying less about philosophical stance and thinking more about things like your self-presentation to the research participants, as well as what you expect from the participants.

In particular, there are a number of different approaches that you can use with regard to neutrality, such as treating the participant as an informant, or taking a more active role in the interview, or explicitly using your "positionally" as part of who you are during the interview. The point is that you need to make choices about your role and the participants' role in the interview. So think about your research goals and how they will influence those choices.

Thanks everyone for taking time to answer my question.

Dear Jeeva,

From the great placements already made, my opinion is that it is indeed possible to believe in the impartiality of qualitative studies. The researcher who conducts studies of this nature, if you want to publish his writings in qualified journals should certainly treat the participant as an informant study.

Greetings!

Some people write field reports in different styles.  You might enjoy Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  William Foote Whyte (1943) authored Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  In the earliest printing, he revealed far less about certain aspects of his relationships and involvement than he later did in an appendix.  For example, he later confessed to having voted more than once under different names.  Some journals, at least under certain editors, such as Organization Studies, may expect an author to confess about his/her predispositions or biases.  If this sort of thing was not originally included, the reviewers could request it in a revision.  Whyte actually relied on a very small number of informants in writing the above book.  In contrast to positivists who like big samples, and everyone is weighted the same, field researchers are looking for people with extraordinary skills in observation and prove to be very willing to progressively share their knowledge as a relationship develops.  I have asked some of my graduate students, if you wanted to learn about physics, would you be better off surveying 100 C students in college physics, or would you prefer to interview in some depth Newton, Einstein, and Tesla?  In order to get much out of an informant, you have to learn enough about the subject matter to talk to the person and grasp his/her insights.  This can take a great deal of time, and realistically, any person would start to be pulled toward the views of such a person.  While there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral or objective researcher, many academic readers will respond better to interview results from balanced questions and descriptions that include a diversity of views.  Good luck with your work, Bruce