Abstract

Objectives: This paper addresses the problem of interpretation in qualitative research as a positional epistemological act shaped by the creative tension between the emic insider perspective and the etic outsider perspective, a tension frequently reduced or ignored in actual research practice. The paper pursues four objectives: conceptualizing interpretation and distinguishing it from description and analysis; tracing the origins and conceptual evolution of the emic-etic distinction; identifying prevalent interpretive failures in research practice; and critically examining the use of artificial intelligence as a substitute for human interpretive agency. Methods: The paper adopts a conceptual-analytical approach, grounded in a critical review of the methodological literature on qualitative interpretation, the emic-etic distinction, and the applications of artificial intelligence in qualitative research. Results: The paper identifies four recurring patterns of interpretive imbalance: description disguised as interpretation, etic imposition, emic immersion, and unjustified theoretical leap. Regarding artificial intelligence, three structural absences are identified as precluding genuine qualitative interpretation: the lack of lived experience, the reproduction of bias concealed within neutrality discourse, and the absence of authentic reflexivity. Conclusions: The paper proposes a six-stage guiding framework designed to orient researchers toward epistemologically aware interpretation, concluding that qualitative interpretation is an irreducibly human act that cannot be delegated to any tool, regardless of its technical sophistication.