Psychology, Science, and Pseudoscience: Class #18 (Qualitative Psych)
•
1 recomendación•926 vistas
In short: Our final case-study from mainstream psychology relates to the scientific implications of 'Qualitative Psychology'.
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Psychology, Science, and Pseudoscience: Class #18 (Qualitative Psych)
Similar a Psychology, Science, and Pseudoscience: Class #18 (Qualitative Psych) (20)
Más de Brian Hughes
Más de Brian Hughes (20)
Último
Último (20)
Psychology, Science, and Pseudoscience: Class #18 (Qualitative Psych)
- 1. PS409 Psychology, Science, & Pseudoscience Dr Brian Hughes School of Psychology brian.hughes@nuigalway.ie @b_m_hughes
- 2. Case Studies: Examples of Psychology-related Pseudoscience
- 3. Case Studies from Within Mainstream Psychology: 4. Qualitative Psychology
- 4. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Quantitative = “numbers”? Qualitative = “quality”?
- 5. Some quantitative concepts… Presence/Absence, Change Negative/Positive, Same/Different Same as last time, or new? Growth
- 6. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Quantitative >> addresses indexible concepts, such as: Amount i.e., you can detect when it Frequency changes, and when it stays Intensity the same. Change over time Presence (vs. absence)
- 7. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Quantitative >> addresses indexible concepts, such as: Amount Frequency Intensity Change over time Presence (vs. absence) Qualitative >> addresses unindexible concepts, such as: Theme Meaning Texture Experience
- 8. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Quantitative >> addresses indexible concepts, such as: Amount Frequency “Quanta” Intensity Externally Change over time verifiable Presence (vs. absence) Qualitative >> addresses unindexible concepts, such as: Theme Meaning “Qualia” Texture Personally Experience verifiable
- 9. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Examples of methodologies: In-depth interviews* Focus groups* Observation* Narrative biography* Analysis of mass media output *heavily reliant on either participant or moderator introspection
- 10. Morgan, M. (1998). Qualitative research: Science or pseudo-science? Psychologist, 11, 481–483. [Also: replies from Cooper & Stevenson (pp. 484–485) and Sherrard (pp. 486–487) and post script by Morgan (p. 488)]
- 11. The Conventional Case for Qualitative Arguments of substance 1. Constructivism vs. positivism 2. Complexity vs. simplicity 3. Humanism vs. mechanisticism Arguments of rhetoric 1. Practitioners vs. scientists 2. Women vs. men 3. Popularity vs. obscurity
- 12. Three Substantive Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative 1. Constructivism vs. positivism Qualitative proponents say… “Human experience is bound by context and all knowledge is fundamentally subjective and relative” Quantitative proponents respond… Such an argument is self-refuting “The Relativist’s Pitard”
- 13. Three Substantive Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative 2. Complexity vs. simplicity Qualitative proponents say… “Human experience is too complex to be studied like other subject matter in science, and cannot be quantified” Quantitative proponents respond… Complexity is not a barrier to science “Quantitative” is not the same as “quantifiable”
- 14. Three Substantive Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative 3. Humanism vs. mechanisticism Qualitative proponents Quantitative proponents say… respond… Quantitative methods treat “Human experience” can humans as machines be studied scientifically, if Quantitative methods term is defined in a cannot examine “human” generalizable way experience Qualitative methods can hardly study “human experience” if it holds that subjective experiences cannot be generalized
- 15. The Conventional Case for Qualitative Arguments of substance 1. Constructivism vs. positivism 2. Complexity vs. simplicity 3. Humanism vs. mechanisticism Arguments of rhetoric 1. Practitioners vs. scientists 2. Women vs. men 3. Popularity vs. obscurity
- 16. Three Rhetorical Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative Practitioners vs. Scientists Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = “listening” Quantitative proponents respond… “Listening” = anecdotal evidence
- 17. Three Rhetorical Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative Practitioners vs. Scientists Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = “listening” Quantitative proponents respond… “Listening” = anecdotal evidence Women vs. Men Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = female Quantitative proponents respond… Refuted (and damaging) gender stereotype
- 18. “Peer-reviewed journals, positivist epistemology, and quantitative methods work… to reduce women’s participation in psychology.” (p. 96) “[In addressing discrimination against women] the new Qualitative Methods in Psychology Section should also provide an important forum…” (p. 96) The Psychologist (2006) On behalf of the British Psychological Society’s Standing Committee for the Promotion of Equal Opportunities
- 19. Three Rhetorical Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative Practitioners vs. Scientists Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = “listening” Quantitative proponents respond… “Listening” = anecdotal evidence Women vs. Men Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = female Quantitative proponents respond… Refuted (and damaging) gender stereotype
- 20. Three Rhetorical Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative Practitioners vs. Scientists Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = “listening” Quantitative proponents respond… “Listening” = anecdotal evidence Women vs. Men Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = female Quantitative proponents respond… Refuted (and damaging) gender stereotype Popularity vs. Obscurity Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = common; integral Quantitative proponents respond… Qualitative = rare, unorthodox, non-mainstream
- 21. How “mainstream” is qualitative research in psychology? Top 10 (of 483) Journals in Psychology, by Impact Factor Impact Factors from ISI Web of Science; hits data from PsycINFO No. of hits for 2009 No. of “qualitative” in title, abstract, Impact articles, method, or key Journal Factor 2000-2009 concept % 1 Annual Review of Psychology 22.750 255 2 0.7843 2 Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19.045 1,246 5 0.4013 3 Psychological Bulletin 12.854 497 12 2.4145 4 Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11.664 1,022 12 1.1742 5 Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9.613 92 0 0.0000 6 Psychological Review 9.082 540 14 2.5926 7 Perspectives on Psychological Science 7.508 181 2 1.1050 8 Personality and Social Psychology Review 6.594 217 0 0.0000 9 American Psychologist 6.537 6,056 15 0.2477 Monographs of the Society for Research on Child 10 Development 6.333 224 8 3.5714 TOTAL 10,330 70 0.6776
- 22. How “mainstream” is qualitative research in psychology? Top 10 (of 93) Journals in Clinical Psychology, by Impact Factor Impact Factors from ISI Web of Science; hits data from PsycINFO No. of hits for “qualitative” 2009 No. of in title, Impact articles, abstract, method, or Journal Factor 2000-2009 key concept % 1 Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9.613 92 0 0.0000 2 Neuropsychology Review 5.231 200 1 0.5000 3 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 3,494 16 0.4579 4 Psychological Medicine 5.012 2,101 15 0.7139 5 Clinical Psychology Review 4.901 567 9 1.5873 6 Journal of Abnormal Psychology 4.515 796 3 0.3769 7 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 4.461 1,142 18 1.5762 8 Health Psychology 3.462 952 5 0.5252 9 Archives of Sexual Behavior 3.239 1,234 25 2.0259 10 Journal of Behavioral Medicine 3.084 437 1 0.2288 TOTAL 11,015 93 0.8443
- 23. How “mainstream” is qualitative research in psychology? Top 10 (of 50) Journals in Social Psychology, by Impact Factor Impact Factors from ISI Web of Science; hits data from PsycINFO No. of hits for 2009 No. of “qualitative” in Impact title, abstract, articles, method, or key Journal Factor 2000-2009 concept % 1 Personality and Social Psychology Review 6.594 217 0 0.0000 2 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology* 6.083 94 0 0.0000 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4.732 1,542 3 0.1946 4 Journal of Personality 2.892 504 10 1.9841 5 Law and Human Behavior 2.628 398 2 0.5025 6 European Journal of Personality 2.597 440 1 0.2273 7 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2.575 1,326 19 1.4329 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 8 Processes 2.549 483 8 1.6563 9 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2.350 280 6 2.1429 10 Child Abuse & Neglect 2.339 1,014 62 6.1144 TOTAL 6,298 111 1.7625 *Hits data for Adv Exp Soc Psychol are from ScienceDirect
- 24. How “mainstream” is qualitative research in psychology? Total number of 1999 articles in PsycINFO: 68,950 Kidd, S. A. (2002). Psychological Methods, 7, 126-138
- 25. Three Rhetorical Arguments for Qualitative over Quantitative Practitioners vs. Scientists Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = “listening” Quantitative proponents respond… “Listening” = anecdotal evidence Women vs. Men Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = female Quantitative proponents respond… Refuted (and damaging) gender stereotype Popularity vs. Obscurity Qualitative proponents say… Qualitative = common; integral Quantitative proponents respond… Qualitative = rare, unorthodox, non-mainstream
- 26. The Conventional Case for Qualitative Arguments of substance 1. Constructivism vs. positivism 2. Complexity vs. simplicity 3. Humanism vs. mechanisticism Arguments of rhetoric 1. Practitioners vs. scientists 2. Women vs. men 3. Popularity vs. obscurity
- 27. Most significant challenges for qualitative research Validity Construct validity External validity Internal validity Reliability Inter-rater reliability Test-retest reliability
- 28. But is it pseudoscience? Unfalsifiability? Hypotheses, predictions, theories not testable Inaccuracies undetectable Vagueness in measurement? Poor construct validity Anecdotal evidence? Fundamental Confirmation bias? Valorisation of subjectivism, interpretivism Indifference towards parsimony? Hostile towards reductionism
- 29. PS409 Psychology, Science, & Pseudoscience Dr Brian Hughes School of Psychology brian.hughes@nuigalway.ie @b_m_hughes
Notas del editor
- Two flaws 1. Doesn’t control for quality of journal (paradoxically?) Keyword search doesn’t select research by method, but article by content. Dissertations on the shortcomings of qualitative research will be counted as well. Time pattern in Figure doesn’t take account of the inclusion of new (many qualitative) journals over time. For example the following have appeared since 1997: Qualitative Research in Psychology (2004) Qualitative Health Research (1991) Qualitative Market Research (1997) Qualitative Research (2000) Qualitative Research in Psychology (2003) Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice (2001) Possible irony of refuting statistical information presented in defence of qualitative research. Is it the case that quantitative information is okay when presented to defend qualitative research, but that it is dismissed as a blunt instrument when used to criticise qualitative research (or to refute defences)? Does the above not suggest that quantitative data is often more complex than qualitative researchers believe, and/or that quantitative research can get behind superficialities and to the heart of the matter just as well as (or better than) qualitative research? (Raises the point of qualitative researchers’ statistical competence)