Introduction to qualitative psychological resarch - Coyle - 2015 - Article

Introduction

In the last few decades, there has been a shift in the methodologies used in psychological research. The author of this article refers to his student times in the mid 1980s: he learned that acceptable psychological research involved the careful measurement of variables, the control of other variables and the appropriate statistical analysis of quantitative data. So, he was never told about conducting psychological research using qualitative research methods. However, around 1990, qualitative research was acknowledged and recognized in its contribution to the discipline. This was seen in, for example, the growing number of qualitative articles in peer-reviewed psychology journals. Now, qualitative work has become widely accepted in many branches of psychology, and especially in social psychology, health psychology, feminist psychology, psychotherapeutic and counseling psychology, clinical psychology and educational psychology. 

The author describes the development of this process and the benefits of this shift. He also describes important issues and developments in qualitative research. 

Epistemology and the 'scientific method'

At the basic level, qualitative psychological research aims to collect and analyse non-numerical data through a kind of lens. Willig (2013) stated that most qualitative researchers want to understand "what it is like" to experience a certain condition (for example, how does it feel to live with a chronic illness or how do people experience being unemployed?). They are also interested in how people manage things (for example, how do people manage a good work-family balance?).

There are certain assumptions about epistemology in qualitative research. Epistemology refers to the bases or possibilities to gain knowledge. It has its base in philosophy. To be more clear: it tries to answer how we can know things and what we can know. 

Ontology is another concept, which refers to the assumptions we make about the nature of being, existence and reality.

So, different research approaches and methods have different epistemologies. Qualitative research involves a variety of methods with a range of epistemologies. Therefore, there are a lot of differences and tensions in the field. When a researcher favours a certain epistemological outlook, then he or she may choose methods that fit this position. Whatever position the researcher picks, he or she should be consistent throughout his research, so that he or she can write a coherent research report. However, sometimes a more flexible epistemological position is required (such as when one uses different epistemologies within the same study).

Often, in research designs, there are no discussions about epistemology. The authors explains this by saying that most of the research approaches that are adopted by researchers, are often taken for granted. For example, think about positivist-empiricist and hypothetico-deductive epistemology. Positivism means that the relationship between the world and our sense perception of the world is straightforward. So, there is a direct relationship between things in the world and our perception (when our perception is not skewed by factors that might damage that correspondence, such as our specific interests). So, positivism holds that it is possible to obtain accurate knowledge about the world around us when we are able to be impartial, unbiased and objective. Empiricism refers to that our knowledge of the world arises from the collection and organization of our observations of the world. With the use of categorization, we can develop a complex knowledge of the world and develop theories to explain this world. 

Most researchers are now aware that positivism and empiricism are not always accurate: they recognize that our observations and perceptions of the world are not purely 'objective' and do not directly provide 'facts' about the world. However, the claim that we need to collect and analyse data to understand is still central in research. Qualitative researchers agree with this. However, they have different ideas about what is appropriate data and how this data should be generated and analysed. 

A theory that was developed as a response to the shortcomings of positivism and empiricism is the hypothetico-deductivism theory of knowledge. Karl Popper (1969) believed that there is no scientific theory that could be definitively verified. Instead, he argued, the aim should not be to obtain evidence to support a theory, but to falsify hypotheses. So, research that adopts a hypothetico-deductive approach, seeks to develop hypotheses and test these hypothesis. The underlying thought is that by identifying false claims, they can develop a clearer sense of the truth. They use deductive reasoning: they start with existing theories, which are defined into hypotheses, which are tested through observations, which eventually lead to confirmation or rejection of the hypotheses. This is also called a 'top-down' approach. 

The 'scientific' method refers to identification with the assumptions of positivism, empiricism and hypothetico-deductivism. In this method, it was assumed that a reality exists that is independent of the observer and that we can access this reality through research (which is called the ontological assumption of 'realism'). Researches thought that for accurate and objective information, researchers needed to be detached from their research, so that they could not 'contaminate' the research process. So, contact between researchers and participants was minimized or standardized (all participants received the same instruction). So, the researcher is 'erased' from the research process. This is also visible in the use of passive language instead of personal language. For example, instead of saying: "I developed a questionnaire", a researcher would write: "A questionnaire was developed". 

Qualitative research might also be conducted in light of this scientific method. For example, if there is an area that has never been researched before, then qualitative research might identify key elements in that area, which then can be tested with the use of measurement instruments such as questionnaires. There are also some qualitative research methods that fully adopt the scientific method. For example, Krippendorf (2013) came up with the structured form of content analysis. In content analysis, qualitative data is quantified very systematically. It is also concerned with reliability (which is not often the case in qualitative research). This is called the 'small q' qualitative research and is defined as research that uses qualitative tools and techniques within a hypothetico-deductive framework. 'Big Q' qualitative research, in contrast, is defined as the use of qualitative techniques within a qualitative paradigm. 'Big Q' qualitative research rejects the idea of objective reality or universal truth. It emphasizes understanding of the context. In this book, all the information refers to 'Big Q' qualitative research.

Understanding individuals in context

Wilhelm (1894) stated that human sciences should focus on establishing understanding rather than causal explanations. This idea was echoed in the nomothetic-idiographic debate of the 1950s and 1960s. Nomothetic research approaches want to uncover generalizable findings which explain objective phenomena. Idiographic research approaches want to look at individual cases in detail, to understand certain outcomes. 

Allport (1962), an influential researcher, stated that we cannot capture the uniqueness of an individual's personality with the use of statistical scores. Harre and Secord (1972) also criticized the focus on the manipulation of variables and the focus on quantification in psychological research. In their classic text "Human Inquiry", Reason and Roman (1981) advocated for a new paradigm for psychology. Also, Lincoln and Guba (1985) advocated for a 'naturalistic' paradigm, which means that one should search for detailed descriptions, so that the reality would be represented through the eyes of the research participants in their context.

These ideas were also adopted by the second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s. Feminist psychology has looked for 'sex differences' in various domains in life and has found that women 'fall short'. To get more insight into women and their experiences, feminist psychologists used qualitative methods that had a phenomenological approach. Phenomenological approaches focus on obtaining detailed descriptions of experience as understood by those who have that experience. One feminist qualitative method that was developed was the 'voice relational method', in which the aim is to 'hear the voices' of people who have often been suppressed (such as those of adolescent girls). These kind of approaches are inductive: they start with data. Then, patterns in the data are labelled. This is also referred to as a 'bottom-up' approach. 

Critical stance on the construction of reality

From a social constructive perspective, the ways in which we understand the world and ourselves are formed by social processes, such as linguistic interactions. So, it states, that there is nothing fixed about these ways: hey all depend on particular cultural and historical contexts. This is called a 'relativist' stance. Reality is seen as dependent on the ways we come to know it. Relativism and social constructionism contrast with the ontology and epistemology of other approaches to qualitative research which tend to assume that there is some relationship between the outcome of the analysis of research data and the actualities (truths) of which the analysis speaks. 

To elaborate: many qualitative researchers acknowledge that the relationship between the analysis and the experiences are not direct. For example, when we want to qualitatively assess the experiences of men in expressing emotions, we know that some men may have forgotten some details or that they present themselves in a more positive way. Also, researchers are often aware of their own professional and personal influences on the research. This latter is called the interpretative framework. However, we still assume that there is some relationship between the analysis and the truth or reality. So, in conclusion: from a social construct perspective, data on emotions are not seen as reflecting reality about emotions. Instead, they are seen as accounts that construct emotions in particular ways and that use 'emotion talk' to perform social functions.

Reflexivity in qualitative research

A key feature of qualitative research is reflexivity. Reflexivity refers to that the researcher acknowledges that his or her interpretive framework (or speaking position) has played a role in their research. This is often seen as a 'contaminating' factor in quantitative research. However, the author states, when reflexivity is properly done, this leads to more transparency of the research process and helps the readers to understand the researcher's work.

A difficult thing when using reflexivity is that, when the rest of the research is written in a detached (non-personal) style, the use of 'I' in the reflections can be confusing. The author suggests that you should be consistent throughout your research report. This might mean that you make your whole research report more personal, or that you separate personal reflections from the rest of the text. 

Most academic journals do not publish articles with personal reflections. This is mostly due to that there are tight limits for articles. The author states that the consequence of this is that the articles are lacking an important contextual aspect and that readers are not in a good position anymore to understand and evaluate the research.

Evaluative criteria for qualitative research

The author explains how readers of qualitative research, can evaluate the worth of these studies. Quantitative studies are often evaluated in criteria such as reliability and internal and external validity. All these measures rely on objectivity and on limiting researcher 'bias'. 

In qualitative research, researcher bias is not limitable, because the researcher is always present in their research.

Elliott and colleagues (1999) developed seven evaluative criteria for quantitative as well as qualitative research, and seven criteria only for qualitative research. Reicher (2000) favoured looser evaluative schemes, such as that of Yardley (2000). Yardley stated that good qualitative research has: 'sensitivity to context', 'commitment and rigour', 'transparency and coherence' and 'impact and importance'. 'Sensitivity to context' means that a researcher should make the context of the theory clear (the socio-cultural setting of the study). 'Commitment' is defined as demonstrating prolonged engagement with the research topic and rigour is defined as the completeness of the data collection and analysis. 'Transparency' refers to that every aspect of the process of data collection is clear and detailed. 'Coherence' is defined as the 'fit' between the research question and the philosophical perspective that is adopted. 'Impact and importance' refer to the theoretical, practical and socio-cultural impact of the study.

The researcher can use the criteria that are most appropriate to the study and then justify their choice of criteria and allow readers to understanding this reasoning. 

There is also a criterion that has to do with the practical utility of qualitative research. The question is: "so what?". This means that a researcher should ask him or herself how his or her study contributes to science or society. 

Methodolatry and flexibility in qualitative research

Each of the set of steps that are mentioned in this book, are only a guidance or useful "road maps". It is important to remember that these maps are only one route to an analysis. You should not become too fixated on these routes: you should only view them as possible routes. With time and increasing experience, you can devise your own 'take' on conducting qualitative research and you might even develop methods for future research.

Combining research methods and approaches

In the last few years, there is often a mix of both qualitative and quantitative methods in the same research project. This is called a mixed-methods approach. The author states that this is a good thing, because it can provide richer research outcomes. The decision to use a mixed-methods approach should be made on the basis of the research questions. One could also use a 'pluralistic analysis', which refers to applying different qualitative methods with different ontologies and epistemologies. The aim of pluralistic analysis is to produce rich, multi-layered, multi-perspective readings of a data set, because by means of different 'ways of seeing'.