The Argument for Qualitative Research in Psychology
In the consideration of why and how it is that people do what they do, and the stories that we tell about ourselves, psychology provides one of the most in-depth and expansive analyses of every aspect of the human experience. Branches of what is today considered psychology have existed for centuries, finding their roots in philosophy that predates even ancient Greece. Given the longevity of the study of the human experience, it makes sense that the methodologies, focuses, and understandings of psychology have changed drastically over time.
Psychology has evolved as a field as it has moved through three major phases throughout history, the presystematic, the systematic but prescientific, and the scientific. R.S. Peters and C. A. Mace surmise presystematic psychology as such:
The presystematic, by far the longest of the three phases, is that in which men observed and reflected on human ways and embodied their reflections in aphorisms, anecdotes, and fables. Presystematic thinking is important since it has been passed down through the ages and is continually augmented by that amalgam of wisdom, superstition, and dogma that those who claim no professional competence like to describe as the fruits of their experience (Peters).
Presystematic psychology was defined by qualitative understandings of the human experience, or stories. These stories were not easily quantifiable and were subject to interpretation, but proved useful in defining the moral systems of entire cultures as evidenced by their longevity and pervasiveness in society even today. An excellent example of this is the Bible and other religious texts and stories that have been passed down for centuries. Stories have taught people how to interact with each other and even provide insight into how humans function generally. The issue these stories present is that they have always been subject to interpretation and are not easily definable to draw scientific conclusions from them.
Psychology as an empirical science slowly began to disentangle itself from subjective philosophy and enter systematic philosophy beginning with Aristotle’s De Anima which provided a biological framework within which human experience could be surmised and conceptualized. The works of Aristotle went on to inspire future philosophers and scientists to standardize methodology and empiricism within their fields of study which first lead to the systematic but prescientific phase and then eventually to the modern scientific understanding of psychology. The scientific age of psychology has been defined by objectivity, empiricism, and replicability.
That push towards empiricism led to a dependency on relatively easily verifiable quantitative research methods. This essay will discuss quantitative and qualitative research methods and seek to answer the question, “is qualitative research a viable method for psychology today?”
Research Methods
Saul Mcleod, a psychology teaching assistant and published researcher for The University of Manchester, Division of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, defined quantitative research:
Quantitative research involves the process of objectively collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest. The goals of quantitative research are to test causal relationships between variables, make predictions, and generalize results to wider populations (McLeod).
He then defines qualitative research:
Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality. Qualitative data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews, and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis (McLeod).
Quantitative research has been favored by the scientific community since the scientific revolution during the Renaissance while qualitative research has been mostly left behind. It is, however, worthwhile to explore the applications of both quantitative and qualitative research before advocating for one method over the other.
Quantitative
In most fields of research today, quantitative research is used to support hypotheses by gathering observable and measurable data to then draw conclusions from. According to Georgine M. Pion, “research using quantitative methods rests on the belief that individuals, groups, organizations, and the environments in which they operate have an objective reality that is relatively constant across time and settings.” Scientists favoring this method seek to gather a small amount of data from a large group of subjects which they then draw conclusions from. According to Linda T. Carr, “this research method approach is an objective, formal, systematic process in which in which numerical data are used to quantify or measure phenomena and produce finding is describes, tests and examines cause and effect relationships, using a deductive process of knowledge attainment” (Carr 716). Students today, when taught about the scientific method, are generally exclusively taught in a framework of quantitative research. Quantitative methodologies seek to test theory deductively from existing knowledge.
There are some limitations with quantitative methodology such as the context of the research, variability of data quantity, and confirmation bias. The difficulty for context is that these experiments do not take place in a natural setting. In order to control for as many variables as possible scientists create unnatural settings in which they can observe their participants and collect data. This is a limiting factor because people tend to act unnaturally when in unnatural settings thus casting doubt on the generalizability of any behaviors observed. There is also risk of the variability of data quantity. According to McLeod, “Large sample sizes are needed for more accurate analysis. Small scale quantitative studies may be less reliable because of the low quantity of data”. Due to the difficulties of finding subjects for psychological studies and the statistical necessity for large sample sizes, many studies suffer from a lack of generalizability a limited pool of data offers. An excellent example of this are frequently lauded twins studies. These studies usually consist of two twins who as babies were adopted into different homes. These studies are interesting (we can effectively control for genetics and study the effects of environments on people), but how often are there twins that are split up at birth that psychologists are actually able to keep track of over years? Not as often as we might like. Confirmation bias is also an issue for quantitative research because a researcher might be so focused on testing their hypothesis that the possibility of alternate explanations may not be as considered or pursued as they should be. Overall, quantitative data is currently in favor in the psychological and scientific community, but does have its limitations.
Qualitative
In contrast to quantitative methodologies, “qualitative researchers are guided by certain ideas, perspectives or hunches regarding the subject to be investigated… [and] develop[] theory inductively” (Carr 716). Chiang presents a basic definition of qualitative research:
Qualitative researchers generally begin with a less focused research question, collect large amounts of relatively “unfiltered” data from a relatively small number of individuals, and describe their data using nonstatistical techniques. They are usually less concerned with drawing general conclusions about human behaviour than with understanding in detail the experience of their research participants.
Qualitative research offers a unique perspective on the human experience not frequently explored in research. Where quantitative research focuses on hypotheses derived from theories which are then tested for by measuring variables, qualitative research generally collects a large amount of data in many different forms from which a possible explanation or interpretation is derived.
“In the aftermath of teenage suicide: A qualitative study of the psychosocial consequences for the surviving family members” by Per Lindqvist, Lars Johansson & Urban Karlsson is an excellent study to demonstrate the process of designing, conducting, and interpreting a qualitative research study. In “In the aftermath of teenage suicide,” 10 families were interviewed 15-25 months after the suicide of a teenage member of the family. According to Lindquvist, et. al. “the information gathered was manually analysed according to a grounded theory model (we’ll discuss this in a minute), resulting in allocation of data into one of three domains: post-suicidal reactions, impact on daily living, and families' need for support”. The results that were reached by the researchers was that “bereaved family members were still profoundly affected by the loss, but all had returned to an ostensibly normal life. Post-suicide support was often badly timed and insufficient, especially for younger siblings” (Lindquivist, et. al.). The study concluded:
Family doctors can organise a long-term, individually formulated support scheme for the bereaved, including laymen who can play a most significant role in the grief process. There is also a need for better understanding of the families who have lost a teenager whom committed suicide and for the development and testing of treatment schemes for the bereaved family (Lindquivist, et. al.).
This study perfectly demonstrates the process of designing, gathering, and interpreting a qualitative research study. The researchers knew that they wanted to study the effects of teenage suicide on the family and thus set out to gather anecdotal stories and interviews from the families studied. An important difference to note here from quantitative methodology, is that the data gathering was done without a hypothesis. A theory explaining the patterns that were derived from the study was created post data gathering. After the interviews, Lindquivist, et. al. analysed the data according to a grounded theory model. According to Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, grounded theory is “the discovery of theory from data” (1). Grounded theory essentially consists of gathering data, systematically identifying ideas that are repeated throughout the data, organizing these ideas into broader themes, and finally writing an interpretation of the data.
There are other frequently used methodologies within qualitative research such as purposive sampling, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation. In a paper entitled Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research” by Rosaline S. Barbour, these methods of qualitative research are discussed in regards to their realistic effects on research. Purposive sampling is a nonprobability sample in which the researcher attempts to gather a sample that can be logically (if not statistically) assumed to represent a population. This method is useful in creating studyable and analyzable samples without the statistical necessity of large or truly random samples. Multiple coding is the response on the part of qualitative researchers to the criticism of subjectivity in the interpretation of their results. To counteract this, independent researchers check the interpretations of data provided by qualitative researchers. This methodology is practically useful in the refining of the interpretations of qualitative data. Triangulation uses more than one research method of data collection to answer one research question. By having more than one source of data to then draw conclusions from, researchers are able to have greater confidence in any conclusion drawn if all the research methods used corroborate the conclusion. The issue with triangulation is that it is realistically incredibly difficult to perform properly because different methods of collecting data will lend themselves to different conclusions. Respondent validation is the practice of presenting the findings of a study to the respondents for evaluation of the conclusions drawn. This can be useful in attempting to verify any conclusions drawn from a study of a sample group by receiving their own perspectives on what should be concluded from their own stories.
Qualitative research methods contrast many of the weaknesses of quantitative research. Chiang provides an incredibly apt summary of the strengths of qualitative research compared to quantitative research:
Quantitative research is good at providing precise answers to specific research questions, it is not nearly as good at generating novel and interesting research questions. Likewise, while quantitative research is good at drawing general conclusions about human behaviour, it is not nearly as good at providing detailed descriptions of the behaviour of particular groups in particular situations. And it is not very good at all at communicating what it is actually like to be a member of a particular group in a particular situation.
Compared to quantitative methodologies, qualitative research allows people to tell their own stories about themselves. Instead of trying to quantify a human being, it is possible to gather snapshots of the human experience which we can then draw conclusions from. Qualitative researchers help assist people in the process of empathizing with each other by sharing stories that we would not otherwise hear.
Conclusion
The field of psychology today is suffering from a replicability crisis. As such, we are reaching a time where alternative methods of conducting research must be considered to increase replicability and thus the reputability of psychology as a whole. Qualitative research methods are very promising in offering new perspectives on the issues that psychology has been grappling with for the better part of a century without a framework of storytelling. While empirical methods are useful in their general simplicity to draw generalizable conclusions, therein lies their weakness as well, simplicity. Quantitative and empirical research do not wholly account for the intricacies of the human experience. Thus while being useful, numbers do not necessarily accurately describe what people go through. Qualitative research provides a much better framework through which to interpret the human experience, draw conclusions from that interpretation, and then recommend specific action to individuals and organizations. Humans are storytellers, we have been for centuries. It therefore makes sense that in attempting to define the human experience we tell each other our stories.
References
Barbour, R.. (2001). Checklists for Improving Rigour in Qualitative Research: A Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog?. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 322.1115-7.10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.
Carr, Linda T. “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research: What Method for Nursing?” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 20, no. 4, 1994, pp. 716–721., doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x
Chiang, I-Chant A., et al. “Qualitative Research.” Research Methods in Psychology, BCcampus, 13 Oct. 2015, opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/qualitative-research/.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, 2017.
Lindqvist, Per, et al. “In the Aftermath of Teenage Suicide: A Qualitative Study of the Psychosocial Consequences for the Surviving Family Members.” BMC Psychiatry, BioMed Central, 1 Jan. 1989, bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186 /1471-244X-8-26.
McLeod, Saul. “Qualitative vs Quantitative Research: Simply Psychology.” Qualitative vs Quantitative Research | Simply Psychology, Simply Psychology, 2019, www.simply psychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html.
Peters, R. S., and C. A. Mace. "Psychology." Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Donald M. Borchert, 2nd ed., vol. 8, Macmillan Reference USA, 2006, pp. 117-150. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3446801676/OVIC?u=byuidaho &sid=OVIC&xid=7069f39e. Accessed 29 Nov. 2020.
Pion, Georgine M., et al. "Research Methods." Encyclopedia of Education, edited by James W. Guthrie, 2nd ed., vol. 6, Macmillan Reference USA, 2002, pp. 2020-2036. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3403200521/OVIC?u=byuidaho& sid=OVIC&xid=204acc79. Accessed 29 Nov. 2020.
Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77-101, DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Zazie Todd, et al. Mixing Methods in Psychology : The Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Theory and Practice. Psychology Press, 2004. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=nlebk&AN=116248&site=eds-live&scope=site.