While qualitative research has been among the more open of academic disciplines, processes for analyzing qualitative data have remained dogmatic. Most qualitative data are “coded” by breaking it into pieces of information that stand alone or through contextualizing it as researchers see fit. Data analysis thus remains a process of deconstructing participant voices and reconstructing stories through sound bites, creating an acceptable form of “fake news” to obtain a seat at the research high table. This continues established traditions of denying “subalterns,” already less agentive in higher education spheres, the ability to speak as the voice of the participant is subjugated to the discourse community of the master. In this paper, we demonstrate how protocols for analyzing qualitative data represent the master’s voice as they draw from Euro-Western ways of knowing the world. Possibilities that foreground indigenous and critical epistemologies are presented as alternatives.