Lecture 12: Criticasters, alternatives, and the future Flashcards
where does psychology belong? 2 soorten
humanities of natural sciences
dus welke dingen zijn onduidelijk over psych als science
- Some say: psychological science is confused
- They think they belong to the natural sciences
- But psychology actually fits in better with humanities
- Should do more with qualitative, interpretive
methods - Why is psychology not interested in literature, art, politics, and ideology?
The big question (again): do humans fall within
or outside the scope of (natural) science?
hoe staan de meeste mensen nu in humanities vs natural sciences
steeds meer mensen die naar humanities gaan, omdat psych ook veel te maken heeft met kunst, literatuur en politiek.
kenmerken van quantitative
- Mainstream psychology is characterized by:
– Controlled experiments
– Measurement procedures and measurement models
– The use of statistics to analyze data - Tendency of objectifying as much as possible
- Quantitative imperative: the conviction that you cannot know what you cannot measure
strengths of quantitative research
– lends itself well for statistical analyses of large datasets
– can produce precise predictions that can be tested
– makes comparison (between groups or subjects)possible/easier.
– easier to investigate confounds and validity threats
weaknesses quantitative
– little interest in the perception of participants
– research limited by what is measurable
– better suited to testing general theories than to finding solutions for specific situations
– If you don’t have a well-developed theory yet, quantitative methods aren’t as helpful; they are not very suitable for generating theories
Quantitative research typically focusses on a
specific task:
‘discovering’ reality
quan legt de focus op…
- revealing causal relationships
- experimental and correlational research
- often driven as much by what we can as by what we want
‘“Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a
lamppost for a key that he has lost on the
other side of the street, because that’s
where the light is. It has no other choice.”
chomsky
hoe is quan research designed
nomothetically
(=search for general laws, for universal information)
most statistical analyses assume that….
most people are interchangeable
positivist philosophy gaat samen met…..
de natural sciences
why should we not see qual and quan as complementary…
underlying assumptions are different, therefore we should not see them as complementary
qualitative research kenmerken
- (Participant) observation, semi-structured
interviews - the researcher is the measurement tool
- result: experiences of the researcher and/or interview transcripts
- input from the researcher is crucial
thematic analysis =
Thematic analysis is a method of analyzing qualitative data. It is usually applied to a set of texts, such as an interview or transcripts. The researcher closely examines the data to identify common themes – topics, ideas and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly.
what is the answer to a research question from qualitative research
the pattern
what are the 6 phases of thematic analysis
- becoming familiar with the data
- generating initial codes
- searching for themes
- reviewing themes (quality control)
- defining and naming themes
- writing the report
grounded theory =
systematic analysis to build a theory about a specific problem
waar is grounded theory based on
structured and semi-structured interviews, the researcher then writes a problem analysis:
- what is going on?
- what kind of problems are the participants dealing with?
- how do they try to solve these problems?
what is grounded theory voor soort onderzoek
qualitative, strongly inductive
Grounded theory tries to…
to “ground” the analysis in observations
interpretative phenomenological analysis =
puts emphasis on the experience of the people studied, what is it like for them to be in a certain position?
the interpretive ability of the researcher then acts as a measurement instrument
IPA tries to capture …
people’s subjective experiences
strengths qualitative research
- direct involvement in situation
- generates theories and enables exploration
- responsive to the needs of participants
weaknesses of qual
- less suitable for demonstrating general laws
- little room for precise predictions/falsification
- less suitable for deciding between theories
- largely based on introspection/subjective evaluation
qualitative is a field, but is often seen as complementary
oke
waarom wordt het soms gezien als complementair
– Generates theories
– From general laws to applied cases
– Well suited for quickly mapping out complex
situations
- From the point of view of the criteria we use to evaluate quantitative research (reliability, replicability etc.), it is a weakness that the
researcher himself contributes so much to the
interpretation. - But you can also look at it in a completely different way
- For example, by letting go of the pursuit of objectivity…
oke
wat is een argument voor het feit dat qual en quan geen complementaire methodes zijn?
- Rather than viewing qualitative research as a
different method - You can also view it as a different paradigm
- Quantitative and qualitative are not “complementary”
- They aim for something fundamentally different
‘The heart of qualitative inquiry is its epistemological stance: its commitment to interrogating subjectivity, intentional
action, and experiences embedded in real-life
context.
Marecek
de 5 misconcepties over qual door maracek:
- Qualitative and quantitative provide the same kind of understanding
- Qualitative work is an adjunct to quantitative research (a first exploration)
- Qualitative research is inductive, quantitative is deductive
- Qualitative approaches guarantee progressive outcomes
- Qualitative research is the same as quantitative psychology but without numbers
- Qualitative and quantitative provide the same kind of understanding: they are complementary methods
no: the stances differ on many dimensions, the form of knowledge they bring is completely different and they could quite possibly bring to the table a different understanding of the ‘truth’
2: Qualitative work is an adjunct to quantitative research
no: it is not only useful to generate hypotheses. this myth entails that qualitative research cannot do the real work of science, and has limited value, serving only as a source of inspiration, or a means fo adding cosmetic appeal or rhetorical flourishes to a manuscript
3: qualitative is inductive, quantitative is deductive
it is true that qual researchers work inductively: they begin with observations and then theorize from it. but they do not embark on projects without any preconceived theories or ideas bout what they are studying. without such ideas, they would have no idea which observations count as data.
plus: quantitative researchers also use redescriptions of hypotheses and omissions, and the research is often more messy -> therefore quantitative research is also partly inductive
4: qualitative approaches guarantee progressive outcomes
some people say that qualitative approaches are feminist? which is insane
because the politics and the values that infuse the researchers interpretations of the results is what distinguishes resaerch as progressive or not. neither qual nor quan is immune to this
5: qualitative psychology is just ‘psychology without numbers’
at least 3 ways:
- no ranking on abstract dimensions
- no statistical inference or probability testing
- no parametric statements about the incidence or distribution of a particular phenomenon
but… it is more than just ‘quantitative without numbers’: it also concerns the interrogating subjectivity, intentional action, and experiences imbedded in contexts.
qualitative research is not so much a different means of doing psychology, but an approach with different ends. it asks different questions and produces a different kind of knowledge
oke
dus qualitative inquiry stands firmly on its own:
- Qualitative research has its own epistemological stance, its own legitimate means of gaining knowledge.
- Qualitative research is thus enough in its own right.
- It’s not just a first stage of quantitative research.
- Qualitative research answers different kind of research questions than quantitative research.
- Qualitative research leads to a different kind of knowledge.
waarom zou qualitative research een paradigm zijn
- Qualitative research (as a paradigm) is not bound to the same methodological criteria as quantitative research
- The researcher’s contribution to interpreting the data is its strength: researchers should be subjective
- The research does not need to be replicable
- Objectivity is not the goal, there is not ‘truth’, reality is a construction
- So, methodological criteria that are based on the idea of an underlying existing truth, miss the point!
Criteria for quantitative psychology:
- Validity
- Reliability
- Replicability
- Transparency
- Generalizability
- Objectivity (e.g. doubleblindedness)
Criteria for qualitative psychology:
- Rigour
- Sensitivity to context
- Coherence
- Commitment
- Impact & importance
- Reflexivity
rigour =
the quality of being detailed, careful, and complete
hermeneutics=
Hermeneutiek is de studie van de interpretatie van teksten, in het bijzonder van teksten op het gebied van literatuur, religie en recht.
hermeneutics in de context van psychologie:
- The traditional quantitative approach is unsuitable for grasping the richness of the mind and the experience of human beings
- Science is defined by its methods rather than by its content
- Methodolatry: emphasis on following methods at the expense of other types of
considerations - Quantitative approach explains, hermeneutics tries to understand
phenomenological perspective=
- an extension of the qualitative approach
- 20th century movement
- tried to develop an interpretive methodology
- focus on intentionality, consciousness and qualia (instead of behaviour)
- verstehen vs erklären
wat bedoelen ze met verstehen
understanding:
- understanding social actions from the perspective of those engaged in them
- gaining insight into the subjective meaning and interpretations that individuals attach to their actions
- rather than just observing, it encourages deeper comprehension of the social world
understanding versus explaining: why?
- The fundamental task of psychology is not to explain human behavior
- It is to understand people’s actions and their motives
- So it is not about action potentials and cognitive processes
- It is about motives and intentions
- Not the behavior itself, but its meaning, should be at the center of the research
social constructionism=
knowledge is a social construction
is science really independent of the reality it studies?
maybe not, due to:
- social constructionism
- the results of psychological research constructs a new reality
- science therefore transform reality
- one acts according to their view of this reality
wat zei Kenneth Gergen over een constructed reality
- Kenneth Gergen argues that psychology transforms reality instead of passively describing it
- Examples: obedience and authority, the bystanders effect
- So it’s also hard to say if knowledge is cumulative
- Consequence: theories should not be judged on truth but on the ability to generate new
openings for action - How can we transform social life in such a way that the consequences are desirable?
-> psychology should let go of the ideal of objectivity
- These aren’t people who think that scientific
psychology contains nonsense! - These are movements that deny both the possibility and the necessity of striving for
objectivity and truth - So in that sense really a different paradigm: different goals, different methods, different norms and values!
oke
en constructionism is ook buiten de humanities toe te passen…
denk aan science en technology, hoe die onze wereld hebben veranderd.
wat is het enge aan constructionism
- We can’t hide behind “revealing the truth”; as
researcher you contribute to what is true - What questions are you asking?
- Which categories do you consider relevant?
postmodernism=
rejects assumptions and principles in modernity: among other things, the trust in science and technology
tegen wat was postmodernism een movement
Logical positivism and later (nuanced/sophisticated) falsificationism: because they preserve the rationality and objectivity of science. postmodernism went against this by stating that nothing can be trusted
wat deed Alan Sokal
Sokal writes in an article that physics itself shows that there is no objective reality. Writes about quantum mechanics, theory of relativity
and quantum gravity. Uses quantum gravity to show that everything is relative and context dependent. It follows from physics itself that there is no absolute truth!
dus zelfs physical heeft geen objective reality
“[P]hysical “reality”, no less than social “reality”, is at bottom a social and linguistic construct”
* “Not only the observer, but the very concept of geometry, becomes relational and contextual”
* “[Q]uantum gravity informs us that space and time themselves are contextual, their meaning defined only relative to the mode of observation”
* We must have a liberating postmodern science, independent of objective truth
* What used to be only the domain of humanities now crosses the border and enters
the natural sciences
* “[A] liberatory postmodern science […] liberates human beings from the tyranny of
“absolute truth” and “objective reality,” […] [and] from the tyranny of other human beings.
van alan sokal
maar wat was er toen met alan solk
hoax! hij had het geschreven om te kijken of een leading journal would publish an article alted with nonsense if it sounded good and it would flatter the editors’ ideological preconceptions
- Sokal confesses: the article consists of falsities and syntactically correct sentences
that mean nothing at all - Moreover, the article presents speculative theories as accepted science
- Sokal turns out to be a scientist who believes that there is an external world, that there are
objective truths, and that his job as a scientist is to discover these truths
“Deny that non-context- dependent assertions can be true, and you don’t just throw out quantum mechanics and molecular biology: you also throw out the nazi gas chambers, the
American enslavement of Africans, and the fact that today in New York it’s raining. […] [F]acts do matter, and some facts (like the first two cited here) matter a great deal.”
why did he say this?
Sokal shows the political consequences of a relativist view. So this is not a purely epistemological consideration but a political one!
wat zei latour over de ‘science war’
“Nothing that happened during the ’90s deserves the name “war.” It was a dispute,
caused by social scientists studying how science is done and being critical of this process.” “We’re in a totally different
situation now. We are indeed at war. This war is run by a mix of big corporations and some
scientists who deny climate change. They have a strong interest in the issue and a large
influence on the population.”
wat is nu de staat van de psychologie
From the first moment psychology became a
scientific discipline of its own, there has been the feeling that the scientific method does not provide all the information psychologists are looking for.
Currently, positivism and quantitive method are dominant.
but will the pendulum swing the other way again?
untill we find a method that encompasses biology, behaviour and subjective experiences, lets take a more pluralist view (=mengeling van alles)
