[L4] - Qualitative Research Flashcards
What did Galton mean by “meten is weten”; “messen ist wissen”
To measure is to know.
In the minds of many, science means measurement/numbers.
As a scientist, you should always be looking for ways to quantify the phenomena you are interested in (Francis Galton: “whenever you can, count”)
As producers of scientific knowledge, we must experiment, and we must quantify/work with numbers - many would argue that science is quantitative (“qualitative research is wishful thinking”)
Psychology is largely an experimental, quantitative science (especially the American branch) – seen in the dominance of psychometrics/statistics in present day undergraduate teachings.
What is a typical psychological study?
hypothesis –> manipulation –> measurement –> test the significance of the difference between the control and experimental group.
Advantages of the typical psychological study/approach
o Generalizable to the population under study (if random sampling is used)
o Causal claims can be made.
o The insights gained can be applied to a real-world context.
Disadvantages of the typical psychological study/approach
o “Empirically poor” – can make strong statements about causes, but not about the individuals featured within the study (we get averages but not individual history, data etc.,)
o Ergodicity – Knowledge of group means does not enable us to make inferences about relationships on an individual level (group claims are not equal to individual claims – Simpson’s Paradox: an association between two variables in a population emerges, disappears or reverses when the population is divided into subpopulations)
o Applicable – Does it have ecological validity? Does a study in a lab context really apply to a real-world context? Applicability is not guaranteed.
A linear approach should be followed in quantitative research; to avoid questionable research practices/harking.
What are the usual characteristics of Qualitative Research?
- Qualitative research is diverse, but generally:
o words, not numbers
o meaning, not causes
o understanding, not prediction (or the testing of a prediction)
o interpretation, not statistical analysis (finding/giving meaning)
o usually does not test hypotheses - often works inductively (circular/iterative, as opposed to linear, process)
o does NOT try to generalise but does seek ‘transferability’ (that your insights will help to make sense of other related responses/experiences – relevant but not generalisable)
o embraces subjectivity but is methodical and reflexive (the researcher plays an important role in assigning meaning to the data they collect – but they seek to do this in a methodical and reflexive way [being aware/conscious of one’s own history/existing knowledge])
While different than quantitative, it is still systematic and still produces real knowledge.
Three Broad Approaches to Qualitative Research in Psychology
Realism
Phenomenology
Social Constructionism
Realism as a Qualitative Approach
From this standpoint, you see qualitative research as a process of discovery - discovering the processes and structures behind phenomenon you study (which you presume to be REAL). You would conduct interviews with questions like “why do you do X”, and the justifications you obtain, you take as the “true” answer. Critical realism calls for more interpretation of the participants’ responses – in that participants may not be fully aware of their own justifications – their response are not taken immediately at face value
[Personal example – Informal Laboratory Practices (what researchers do but do not write about) – Researchers were asked if they have these – most mentioned professional presentation of experimenters – He and his team just asked, and then accepted the answers given]
Phenomenology as a Qualitative Approach
A desire to investigate how people experience the world - the quality and texture of experience. “What is it like to be X?”. Phenomenology can be more descriptive (describing experiences that participants share as accurately as possible) or more interpretative (looking beyond what is literally said like using a conceptual framework to make sense of participants’ insights). It has more depth/knowledge about individuals than quantitative research typically does.
[Personal example – Interviewing and observing Replicators – The work can be very frustrating; they were interested in the emotional component of doing research]
Social Constructionism as a Qualitative Approach
A look at how people talk about and produce knowledge about their world – as the underlying assumption is that experience is mediated/constructed by language; that everyone has their own version of reality. A radical social constructionist believes that there is no objective truth – only differing constructions of reality. That leads to a form of relativism (there is no truth, everyone has their own truth). Typically, social constructionists take a more nuanced position in that while people do create/construct their own differing realities, there are some common threads/dominant perspectives.
[Personal example – Interviewing Replicators (in which there is lots of laughter; often when it touches on questionable research practices/fraud) – What does the laughter achieve in the face of a touchy/sensitive topic? What does it do in the interaction?]
Truijens, June, and the “story behind the numbers”
The validity of an RCT depends on the process of transforming experience into numbers.
June’s questionnaires were illegible/unusable - 26 years old - overwhelming fear to be sick or dysfunctional, or go crazy (fear of being disordered) – 58 psychodynamic therapy sessions – she quits after 58 without having yet recovered.
Femke (PHD) student does an Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a result - June interprets and expresses her experiences in words and drawings - then the analyst interprets June’s words and drawing.
We see an example of a drawing she does about how she feels restricted by the “boxes”/framework society imposes upon us – and she finds it difficult to fill the boxes, she either overfills them/is too much for a box, or is too little for a box/doesn’t meet the requirements/expectations of society.
June struggled with what the questionnaire questions mean – she is constantly over interpreting and is prone to suggestion/searching for meaning – cannot take questions at face value (e.g., it is not who you are, but what you achieve that counts – she responds with the fact that who she is matters to her, but what she achieves is what matters to society – she creates two variants from the original item [agree for me, agreement for society])
She adds a new answer possibility where she feels it is missing as well (where is the less than usual option) - perhaps other participants felt the same but didn’t go to June’s extent to highlight it - raises questions about the quality of the numerical data used in the RCT.
June also felt confronted by the questions she was asked, and worried about how her responses might be interpreted.
She felt that the questionnaire suggested things to her (suicidal ideation), judged her, and caged her (boxed in) - as well as measuring her, it changed her (created new fears) – partially because of the type of disorder she has.
Conclusion: We cannot accept the validity of quantitative numbers at face value
Psychometricians would counter - these individual variations even out on average - they are just error, noise.
Femke would counter again: Perhaps, but the performative effects are not noise - they do affect the validity of the data.
