arahanga-doyle Flashcards
What type of data does qualitative research produce?
Descriptive data, such as observations of behaviour or personal accounts of experiences
Goal of qualitative research
To look @ how people can perceive the world from different vantage points
Does qualitative research focus more on intentional or material properties?
Intentional properties
Material properties def
Quantifiable properties of a thing or phenomena
Intentional properties def + example
Meaning that people assign to the properties of a thing or phenomena (if it involves ppl, then meaning matters)
Example: measuring sound waves would be the material properties, but when those waves hit our ears we make meaning of them (INTENTIONAL)
Does qualitative research usually have a specific hypothesis?
No - usually more guided by research question
Is qualitative research usually bottom-up or top-down?
Bottom-up - get data + build theory from that data
How do u typically gather data in quantitative research?
Mostly ask closed questions of large samples 2 test v specific hypotheses
How does qualitative research represent psychological phenomena?
Discursively - looking @ pattern of language
1. Captures original quality of data
2. Primarily uses quotes n images
Ontology def
Question of existence itself, all research is underpinned by a set of assumptions abt the nature of reality
The two major ontological positions r.. ?
Naïve realism and strong relativism
Naïve realism def
There is one ‘true’ reality (independent of perception), our representations of things in the world r accurate to how they actually r
Strong relativism def
Ppl’s realties differ relative 2 perception (in particular our reality is created thru language - e.g. colours?), view that our representations of things in the world r socially constructed + can’t b seen as simple reflections of how these things actually r
What research types use naïve realism + strong relativism, respectively?
Quantitative research primarily uses naïve realism, qualitative research primarily uses strong relativism
Critical realism def
- Lies in between naïve realism n strong relativism
- Disagrees w/ strong relativism in that there is a reality independent of our own perceptions, agrees w/ it in that understanding of reality is somewhat culturally + historically specific (research can never b truly objective)
- Agrees w/ realist position that our knowledge of smth doesn’t bring it into existence
Epistemology def + two main types
Nature, origin, + limitations of knowledge
Two main perspectives r positivism + social constructivism
Positivism def (typically quantitative)
View that knowledge + meaning is waiting 2 b discovered and is then considered ‘true’ until disproven (thru research)
1. Knowledge can only b gained thru observation, researchers should be sceptical using participant reports (not v subjective)
Social constructivism def (typically qualitative)
View that knowledge + meaning is being generated by attempts to explain the human world
1. Science is impacted on by the historical, political, and social context etc.
2. U can never know objective truth, research methods that look 4 meaning in the world r seen as more useful
3. Knowledge can b created w/ in the research itself
Reflexivity def
Researcher’s self-awareness
Can qualitative psychs b objective?
NO!! they’re ppl studying ppl - they’re embedded in the world
Double hermeneutic in qualitative research
Within a qualitative interview or focus group there r 2 levels of interpretation:
1. Participant trying to make sense of the research topic
2. Researcher is trying to make sense of how the participant is trying to make sense of their world
Qualitative vs. quantitative research questions
Qualitative - tend to be broader, more looking for understanding than a specific outcome
Quantitative - predictions (or hypotheses) r made about the expected findings of a study based on a numerical prediction
Sampling in quantitative research
Led by statistical power (enough to detect hypothesised effect), must be random sampling
Sampling in qualitative research
Led by the research question, requires enough depth to be informative. Might take the form of:
1. Sample of convenience (e.g. interviewing flatmates), not ideal but sometimes necessary
2. Purposeful sampling (seeking out participants w/ particular characteristics)
3. Snowball sampling
4. Theoretical sampling
Theoretical sampling def
Have ur topic + get set of participants, ask questions abt that topic → use what you’ve learned to influence how ur data collection might change
Diff types of purposeful sampling
- Homogenous sample - prioritises similarity, participants have a common experience
- Comparative sample - prioritises a range of experiences based around the same topic
- Diverse sample - prioritises maximal difference 2 gain multiple perspectives
4 ethical principles:
Cultural sensitivity
Informed consent
Deception n protection from harm
Confidentiality
Quantitative view of participant involvement + ethics implications
‘Subjects’ hold information to be gathered by researchers; they are subjected to research
1. Often focuses on anonymising data set
2. Needs 2 b approved by ethics committee
Qualitative view of participant involvement + ethics implications
‘Participants’ should be fully engaged in the research (doing the research with them not on them), co-creation of knowledge
1. Co-researchers may require research training (data could contain personal/identifying info - need 2 b sensitive)
2. Needs 2 b approved by ethics committee
Cultural sensitivity def + example application
Contemporary research privileges Western ways of knowing (predominantly a realist ontology - 1 true reality independent of perception), need 2 b sensitive 2 other cultures’ existence
Example application: interviewers have 2 build rapport, think on their feet; may have 2 repair damage, b more than just a neutral listener
Informed consent def
Need 2 inform participants abt research, get consent in the form of: signed (consent form), proxy (some1 else signs 4 participant), passive (properly informing ur participant n they don’t refuse)
Power of researcher: Sommers & Bohns, 2018
Experiencer (asked 2 hand over their phone) and forecaster group (described what happened 2 experiencer group, then asked 2 questions: would a reasonable person hand over their phone, would u hand over ur phone). Results:
1. Most forecasters believed a reasonable person wouldn’t hand over phone, 97% of experiencers handed over phone
Deception + protection from harm (guidelines by NZ Psych Society):
- Deception only used when no alternative - never w/ children, never in qualitative research (want 2 explicitly know participant’s perception of that topic)
- Can b important in experimental research where awareness reduces the effect (e.g. prejudice)
- Once u use it, important 2 debrief participant - disclose deception, offer info abt sources of help when relevant
Confidentiality, has 2 important practices (access + removal of identifiers):
- Access 2 data - only researchers + participant, need 2 have well-trained co-researchers
- Removal of identifiers from transcripts
How long is quantitative data stored?
Usually 10 yrs, should u delete private data earlier
Qualitative data analysis: Braun & Clarke’s 2006 thematic analysis technique
- Generated by systematic searching within your qualitative data
- Usually involves a central organising concept/idea (thematic solar system)
- Supported by example quotes or images
- Is reflexive
Most common data collection 4 qualitative research:
1-on-1 interviews
Are smaller or bigger samples better for qualitative research?
Smaller - more in-depth
Unstructured interview features
- Research topic in mind, more exploratory - bottom up
- Good 4 research development n pilot studies
Structured interview features (more common than unstructured)
- Closed questions or scoring answers to open-ended ones (yield NUMERICAL data)
- V fixed topic + fixed order of questions
- Clear roles (researcher + participant), basically like being read a questionnaire
- Expansion allowed only if pre-defined - branching (e.g. R u a student at Otago? If yes, go to question 2; if no, go to question 7.)
- Good 4 diagnostic screening interviews (looking at what they have) + quantitative research (census?)
Semi-structured interview features (more common than unstructured, more planning involved than for structured)
- Open-ended questioning or probing following closed questions, question order may vary
- Expansion on topic encouraged - want participant 2 say more abt topic than just the question u have planned
- Almost equal roles - interviewer is seeking view of expert
- Use topic guide or interview schedule
- Good 4 focused qualitative research
Itinerant process
Where u return + come back to the data itself (e.g. re-read transcript)
Focus group features
- Apply interview techniques 2 groups (n = 3+)
Informal discussion among selected individuals abt specific topics - Typically shorter than a 1-on-1 interview, usually want it 2 b under an hr
When did market research stop being so quantitative?
1940s - w/ WW2
Guidance def
Type + amount of questions researcher will ask
Interpretative repertoire
One of the main ways in which discourse analysts approach their text, common sense ways in which we make sense of our social world (terms we use, metaphors we draw on)
Subject position
Availability of ways of categorising/understanding the particular position u can take up w/ in an interpretative repertoire
Ideological dilemmas
Interpretative repertoires can b contradictory + when we speak on things we draw on particular arguments n descriptions, but don’t always remain consistent - shift w/ in the repertoire that we’re using
Photo elicitation def
Research method that involves the use of photos w/ in an interview or focus group discussion. Essentially, photos as interview prompts.
Pros of photo elicitation
- Memory aid - can elicit more info, can evoke different kind of info
- Build rapport - can ‘break ice’ in a research setting
- Empowering - particularly in participant-led photo elicitation
Researcher-led photo elicitation
Research provides photo (typically 1+, a handful) related 2 the research question
1. Photos primarily used as interview aid (2nd to participant quotes, useful 4 questions + memory)
2. Limited analysis (only investigating participant response 2 photos - not why they took the photos, also - less photos/photos being reused)
Participant-led photo elicitation
Participant provides photo (most common form is participant generated - participant takes photo, but can include any photo)
1. Used w/ in interview + analysis (typically more meaningful photos than 4 research-led)
2. Wider scope 4 analysis (meaning of photo, reason 4 including photo, response 2 photo)
Participatory/’photo voice’ methodology
- Higher level of participation, actively include participants throughout entire research process
- Prompts equality between participants + researchers, empowers participants 2 use their lived experiences 2 provide valuable data that can act as a catalyst 4 change
Is media a direct or indirect form info sharing?
Indirect - an example of direct would b actually talking in-person 2 someone
Discourse def
Patterns of language that represent, foster, + circulate versions of reality (shared versions of ‘how things are’), media helps construct + reflect these collective understandings
3 main types of media elicitation studies
- Researcher-led
- Participant-led
- Primary media analysis
Researcher-led media elicitation
Media stimuli pre-selected by researchers, can b real or mock media
Participant-led media elicitation
Media gathered by participants (can be done in real time), e.g. asking participants to choose + share media on the topic of gender n emotions
Primary media analysis photo elicitation
Media itself is the focus (no participants, just media)
Code def
- Refers 2 kind of shorthand language that everyone shares + understands, thru which we can communicate larger ideas
- Refers 2 set of rules/way of behaviour 2 follow
Mixed methods research def
Research in which investigator collects n analyses data, integrates findings + draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study
What philosophy drives mixed methods?
Philosophy of pragmatism - the end justifies the means, research cannot b solely driven by theory or data (non-purist position)
4 key factors of mixed methods design
- Implementation - order of data collection (did data from 1 inform the other)
- Priority - priority may b equally shared among qualitative n quantitive data, but not usually
- Integration - stage in which diff types of data r integrated
- Theoretical perspective - ultimate goal of study is 2 advocate 4 change
At what stage does integration in mixed methods typically occur?
Interpretation phase, right at the end
Implementation: sequential def
Qualitative data collected b4 quantitative OR quantitative data collected b4 qualitative
Implementation: concurrent def
Collected @ same time
4 key mixed methods designs:
- Sequential explanatory (quant informs qual, both methods of equal priority)
- Sequential exploratory (qual informs quant, both methods of equal priority)
- Concurrent triangulation (occur @ same time, equal priority)
- Concurrent nested (occur @ same time, not equal priority)
Basic research (pure or blue skies) def
Learning abt fundamental elements of a topic, better understanding of theory is inherently valuable. NO consideration of any direct practical application.
Which typically goes first - basic or applied research?
Basic –> applied
What research type is ‘yes’ 2 fundamental knowledge + immediate application.. ?
Pasteur’s Quadrant - inspired basic research, rigorous in research but also worried abt real-world applications
1. Most psych research occurs w/ in this realm
What research type is ‘yes’ 2 fundamental knowledge + no 2 immediate application.. ?
Bohr’s Quadrant - most pure level of basic research, typically conducted in a lab/impoverished context of participant (remove as many elements as possible 2 focus on topic of research)
What research type is ‘no’ 2 fundamental knowledge + yes 2 immediate application.. ?
Edison’s Quadrant (pure applied research)
What research type is ‘no’ 2 fundamental knowledge + immediate application.. ?
Tinkering - what’re u actually looking 2 achieve (usually anecdotes or common sense, often inaccurate)
Cross-sectional research def
Research in which data r compared at a single point in time (e.g. census)
Cross-sectional research pros:
- Simple
- Quick
- Inexpensive
- Valuable 4 generating hypotheses (gain descriptive info) - findings can b built upon
Cross-sectional research cons:
- Difficult if not impossible 2 make causal inferences (can’t investigate temporal relationships)
- Difficult 2 study rare phenomena (might take ‘snapshot’ at wrong time)
- Common assessment variance
Common assessment variance def
Outcomes r influenced by variable that doesn’t directly influence ur concepts but changes how ppl answer
1. Example: everyone given $100 walking into lecture, then get assessed on happiness
Criteria 4 causal conclusions:
- Proposed cause and effect are related
- Proposed cause occurs prior to effect
- We can rule out feasible alternative explanations
- Proposed cause works through an articulated mechanism - offer some kind of mechanism 4 those things being related
Strengths of longitudinal research
Causal inference (clear temporal relationships)
Weaknesses of longitudinal research
- Participant attrition (some will stop answering questions over time)
- Over time other variables can contaminate results
- Temporal erosion - time can change the way variables interact w/ one another (e.g. asking someone abt an ad they saw ages ago)
Psych interventions def
Applied element of psych, ultimately aiming 2 change smth
3 Ts of social psych interventions:
- Targeted - intervention should be given to those who need it, not delivered indiscriminately
- Tailored - interventions should fit the motivational mechanism and the situation (understanding of context)
- Timely - intervention should b delivered at the right time
When did father of modern psych William James die/when did modern psych really get established?
He died in 1910, psych only around 4 abt 114 years
What did early modern psych focus on?
- Focus was on the individual/intrapersonal
- Behaviourist principles dominated
- Discrimination/prejudice/bias
Lewin’s equation of human behaviour:
Behaviour = function of (the person x the enviro)
Interactionist perspective (supported by Lewin) def
Dynamic interplay of person + enviro
Tajfel’s findings 4 MGP allocation task:
- Parity was most modal response
- Significant number of in-group favouritism strategies favoured
- Demonstrated maximum differentiation strategies (biggest difference), despite losing out on largest profit 2 do so
Parity def
Give exact same amount 2 in-group + out-group
Pull scores def (Tajfel MGP allocation task)
What allocation strategy participants r using
2 general types of ‘other people’:
Individuals (might not know who they r) + groups (e.g. parents, ur soccer team)
Descriptive norms def
Behaviour considered typical
Injunctive/prescriptive norms def
Behaviour considered ‘proper’
Dynamic norms def
Awareness of changing norms
1. Most descriptive n injunctive norms r seen as static - dynamic norms draw attention 2 the change of a norm over time instead of its current state
How r dynamic norms a mechanism 4 change?
They suggest ongoing change - if there is an idea that norm is changing, it might change behaviour
Types of social psych data collection:
Self-reports, observation, archival data
What’s an important assumption 2 make when using a Likert scale?
Psychological distance between options is equal
What r the most common number of points on a Likert scale?
5, followed by 7 and 4.
90% of studies use odd number of points + 10% even.
Likert scale pros:
- Provides objective numerical values 2 analyse (can compare groups)
- Adds a qualitative element 2 the data
- More sensitive than having 2 responses like just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (e.g. ‘yes’ I drink weekly could mean 5x or 1x)
- Better than using larger scale like 1-100 (difficult 2 decided where to group - 1-10? 1-5?)
Likert scale cons:
- Difficulty in responding (could b due 2 lack of understanding w/ in language or w/ translation)
- Out of range responding (does scale prompt unavailable responses such as ‘yes’ or ‘no’)
- Varied patterns of responding (might not answer Likert scales in the same way, could be due 2 cultural variations in how participant groups cluster their answers)
- Scale reliability (are all of the items measuring the same thing)
- Construct validity (are we measuring what we want 2)
Do Westerners have higher self-enhancement than Easterners?
Yes. Example: ‘I feel that I have a number of good qualities’ (5-point scale) –> 93% of Euro-Canadians answered above mid-point compared to 55% of Japanese
Internal consistency def
Extent to which things that claim to measure various aspects of the same thing actually do
Internal consistency for Likert scales measured by Cronbach’s Alpha
0 means no relationship between items, 1 = perfect relationship.
Generally want to be over 0.7; at 0.95 items are redundant (measuring exact same thing).
When should u use words instead of images for Likert scales with children?
Over age 6, use images and words; over age 8, use words.
Self-report cons:
- Poor question design, could b leading or ambiguous
- Typically relies on memory
- Misleading responses - might b directly trying 2 get a particular response
Observational research 3 key points:
- Doesn’t rely on memory
- Uses inter-rater reliability
- Participant awareness of being watched (if they know they’re being watched they’ll act different)
What percentage of agreement between researchers is necessary for inter-rater reliability?
At least 80%
Archival data cons:
Context of data can change, which in turn may change data’s meaning
Strengths of natural experiment design:
- Real-world data → ecologically valid (degree 2 which results r representative of conditions in the wider world)
- Can incorporate a range of data collection methods (not experimental, don’t have 2 have participants in lab)
- Can look @ quite a large scale?
Weaknesses of natural experiment design:
- Confounding variables
- Control group not always possible
Wu et al., 2016
- Imagine u r 30 yrs old, married, financially independent, n living separately from ur parents
- Ur house is burning down - would u choose 2 save ur mother or spouse?
- Taiwan - 72.7% chose mother, U.S. - 75% chose spouse –> diff cultural values
Cultural cycle (Markus & Conner, 2014) - simplified version:
Individual –> interactions –> institutions –> ideas and back again
Does the cultural cycle operate more @ the conscious or unconscious level?
Largely @ the unconscious level - steering the self w/ out troubling the conscious mind
Richmond et al., 1992
- Looking @ maternal responsiveness (how much do mothers look @ children + what does it mean 4 child’s development)
- Initial thinking was critical variable was mother (how much does mother respond)
- Looked @ maternal responsiveness in the U.S. + in Western Kenya → Kenyan mothers significantly lower in responsiveness (failed 2 take into acc that those children were not raised solely by their mothers)
Whaley et al., 2002
When all caregivers r taken into acc n not just mothers, the difference between Kenyan and U.S. styles of interacting is not found → began 2 question Western domination of psych
Heine’s categories of psych universals:
- Non-universal - process doesn’t exist in all cultures
- Existential universal - process is present but used in diff ways (qualitatively distinct)
- Functional universal - process is present n used in same way, but not necessarily @ same level of accessibility
- Accessibility universal - process is present, used in same way, + has same level of accessibility
Accessibility universal example
Mere exposure effect - tendency 2 experience positive affect towards familiar objects compared 2 unfamiliar objects
Existential universal example
Success or failure could motivate students in diff. Ways (White & Lehman, 2005) → Euro-Canadian students motivated by success, while failure motivated Asian-Canadian students
Cumulative cultural evolution def
Beneficial modifications r accumulated over time (ppl work out what is beneficial + modify behaviour based on that understanding).
Imitation helps w/ ongoing cycle of knowledge → can innovate on top of someone’s past knowledge (e.g. evolution of hammer).
What is the most reliable route for cultural learning?
Imitative learning, not emulative bc it’s hard to accumulate knowledge that way
Emulative learning
Learner tries 2 understand ‘thing’ 4 themselves, focuses on environmental events around the model + not their intentions
Nagell et al., 1993
- Children imitated (children shown teeth down continued 2 use less effective method)
- Chimps emulated (more commonly used teeth up - most effective)
Herrmann et al., 2007 (looking @ 2.5 yr old children, chimpanzees, orangutans)
- Children imitated, animals emulated.
- Chimps + orangutans better w/ physical tasks, children much better w/ social tasks
Cross-cultural psych def
Provides a methodology for comparing cultures
1. Uses comparative research methods (often quantitative/generalised n standardised)
2. Looks @ people x their culture = social norms, beliefs etc., compares to other group
Etic research def (comes from word phonetic - study of universal sound)
Research in which a classification system is imposed on what is being studied, classification or criteria is external 2 what’s being studied.
Often comparisons between cultures.
Emic research (comes from phonemic - study of sound unique 2 particular languages)
Research in which the classification system is discovered within, rather than imposed
Granovetter’s Riot Model (limitations of strictly comparative approach, especially from an etic POV)
- Each person has unique threshold 2 engage in violence
- Town A (mean: 49.50), Town B (mean: 49.51) - almost exact same distribution, but Town B has no individual w/ a ‘3’ threshold → Town A has full riot, Town B doesn’t
- Intergroup comparison not always most useful 4 understanding behaviour, as seen w/ Town A + Town B being almost indistinguishable
‘Insider’ research def (under umbrella of emic research)
- Researcher is part of the social group or culture
- Involves high level of positionality + reflexivity
Challenges of insider research:
- Presumptions abt shared understandings
- Pre-existing relationships could interfere w/ conversation topics
- Complexity in positions of power - if ur low in hierarchy, might not b comfy interviewing necessary ppl
Core elements of Indigenous psychologies (that u might forget):
- Research is conducted bottom-up + from w/ in
- Outcomes designed 2 benefit its people
- Methodologically diverse - mostly qualitative (primarily concerned w/ intentional meanings), but doesn’t rule out quantitative
What does the concept of Indigenous psych say abt the accessibility universal?
Doesn’t exist
Kaupapa Māori principles (Walker et al., 2006)
- Tino rangatiratanga (Māori privileged, Māori-led)
- Social justice (restore ea)
- Māori worldview as legitimate
- Te reo Māori (incorporated as much as possible, some concepts need 2 be in te reo)
- Whānau
Ethnographic research def
More than describing specific stories, more than interviews or focus groups bc it includes observations
Māori men: An indigenous psych perspective on the interconnected self (Rua et al., 2017)
Found 4 main themes:
1. Tūrangawaewae (marae described as important element of tūrangawaewae)
2. Whānau (whānau were sounding boards n helped interviewees 2 recall particular events)
3. Kaumātua (elders, strong sense of respect 4 kaumātua)
4. Whakapapa n whanaungatanga (interconnected Māori self must b experienced materially - e.g. kanohi kitea/a face seen)
Indigenous storytelling in a team context (Hapeta et al., 2019)
Looking @ a NZ rugby team, found:
1. Coaches embraced Māori storytelling n symbols throughout coaching, developed a maunga of success (physical → technical + tactical → brotherhood → leadership → performance)
2. Players talked abt maunga helping them achieve success and belonging, more representative Māori mascot brought greater sense of cultural identity n mana
He Awa Whiria – Braided Rivers Model (Macfarlane & Macfarlane, 2019)
Aim is 2 blend Indigenous n Western bodies of knowledge in a way that is more powerful than either individual stream alone
