Qualitative research in psychology

A distinct research process Inquiries of knowledge that are outside the framework prescribed by the scientific method, as well as assumptions of inferential statistics Important to review modern philosophies of science which have set rules for how psychologists have thought about research for past 80 years.

Philosophy of science Understand why & how philosophy of science is relevant to psychology Understand why & how philosophy of science is relevant to psychology Appreciate the basic issues of hypotheses and disconfirmation Appreciate the basic issues of hypotheses and disconfirmation Be able to assess the relevance of different models of science to different areas of psychology Be able to assess the relevance of different models of science to different areas of psychology

What is the ‘philosophy of science’? concerned with the question of how we should carry out scientific research given our understanding of the nature of knowledge. concerned with the question of how we should carry out scientific research given our understanding of the nature of knowledge. how most scientists actually work given the social and practical circumstances of their work. how most scientists actually work given the social and practical circumstances of their work.

Reality, Knowledge & Science Philosophers interested in the relation between Ontology (the study of what actually exists) Ontology (the study of what actually exists) Epistemology (the study of what knowledge is, what we can know and what the limits of knowledge are) Epistemology (the study of what knowledge is, what we can know and what the limits of knowledge are) Methodology (the study of the ways in which the world can be studied). Methodology (the study of the ways in which the world can be studied).

Definition Example in physical science Example in psychology Ontology The study of what actually exists Is space infinite? Is the mind part of the brain? Epistemology The study of the varieties, foundations & limits of what we can know What are the limits to our understanding of the relationship between time & space? What kind of limits are there on our understanding of the link between the brain and consciousness? Methodology The study of means of investigating a phenomenon How should we study time & space? How should we study the effects of drugs on consciousness?

Ontological assumptions ↓ Epistemological assumptions ↓ Methodological assumptions Methodological assumptions

What is science? Objective testing of theories based on evidence Objective testing of theories based on evidence Public sharing of data Public sharing of data Theories competing with each other Theories competing with each other Careful measurements/recording/data analysis Careful measurements/recording/data analysis Therefore psychology is a science…? Therefore psychology is a science…?

Key concepts in philosophy of science Positivism Positivism Logical Positivism Logical Positivism Disconfirmation Disconfirmation Paradigms Paradigms Anarchy Anarchy Social Constructionism Social Constructionism

Comte, Ayer and logical positivism Auguste Comte ( ) three phases of searching for understanding theological ; metaphysical ; positive or scientific Positivism ‘unity of science project’ process of induction. process of induction. Vienna Circle 1920s - ‘logical positivism’ Vienna Circle 1920s - ‘logical positivism’ emphasis on theories & logical deduction of hypotheses emphasis on theories & logical deduction of hypotheses

Alfred Ayer ( ,) Language, Truth and Logic a statement can only be true only if (i) it is a self-evident analytic, deductive truth (e.g. ‘2+2=4’) (i) it is a self-evident analytic, deductive truth (e.g. ‘2+2=4’) (ii) the statement matches reality precisely. Statements had to be verifiable to be meaningful. commitment to empiricism, checking ideas against the world.

not about the process of discovery per se - just specifying what should be permitted as scientific – conservative logical positivist criteria - Psychology borderline picked up by behaviourism.

Positivism Facts Facts More facts More facts Generalise from those facts Generalise from those facts = induction = induction

Logical Positivism Theory Theory Verifiability Verifiability Tests Tests Generalise Generalise = deduction = deduction

Disconfirmation Karl Popper ( ) first major attack on logical positivism The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935 / 1959) Karl Popper ( ) first major attack on logical positivism The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935 / 1959) verifiability encouraged confirmation of theories rather than genuine discovery; consistent evidence is merely corroboration. verifiability encouraged confirmation of theories rather than genuine discovery; consistent evidence is merely corroboration. Bold conjectures required by science Bold conjectures required by science Disconfirmation/falsifiability principle: hypotheses need to be capable of being wrong Disconfirmation/falsifiability principle: hypotheses need to be capable of being wrong

Several problems: theories and observations are neither independent nor neutral theories and observations are neither independent nor neutral science is a practical business - find best answer rather than the application of logic science is a practical business - find best answer rather than the application of logic

Science should proceed in 4 stages: 1. Formal Stage. theory checked for internal consistency. 2. Semi-formal Stage. separate propositions which do/do not have empirical consequences 3. Comparison Stage. new theory compared with existing theories If it explains the same/less known facts then new theory should be abandoned. 4. Empirical Testing Stage. test hypothesis least likely to be true - informativeness. And if prediction not supported? still our best guess Criticism: scientists propose ‘auxiliary hypotheses’ Criticism: scientists propose ‘auxiliary hypotheses’

What are the implications of Popper’s ideas for how we think about psychological research? difficulty arises when considering theories rather than hypotheses difficulty arises when considering theories rather than hypotheses Theories which are internally inconsistent are incapable of being disconfirmed Theories which are internally inconsistent are incapable of being disconfirmed

Kuhn and revolution: Paradigms Thomas Kuhn( ) scientific progress not a purely rational process: peaceful interludes- normal science where scientists share a paradigm - punctuated by violent intellectual revolutions. Thomas Kuhn( ) scientific progress not a purely rational process: peaceful interludes- normal science where scientists share a paradigm - punctuated by violent intellectual revolutions. scientists don’t listen to the data scientists don’t listen to the data Routine procedures and ideas = paradigm Routine procedures and ideas = paradigm Normal science Normal science Revolutionary science Revolutionary science

most scientists conservative: do not abandon or revise theory but dismiss data most scientists conservative: do not abandon or revise theory but dismiss data when inconsistent data build up and new radical paradigm is offered there is a revolution when inconsistent data build up and new radical paradigm is offered there is a revolution old paradigm is never decisively shown to be wrong but simply withers away as fewer and fewer experiments are carried out within its frame of reference. old paradigm is never decisively shown to be wrong but simply withers away as fewer and fewer experiments are carried out within its frame of reference.

What are the implications of Kuhn's ideas for how we think about psychological research? relationship between evidence & theory framed by paradigm in which research is carried out. relationship between evidence & theory framed by paradigm in which research is carried out.

Epistemological Anarchy Paul Feyerabend ( ) Against Method 1975 Paul Feyerabend ( ) Against Method 1975 No single correct method in science: rejected realism for a form of relativism No single correct method in science: rejected realism for a form of relativism in principle all forms of theories are worthwhile = theoretical pluralism Anything that works is fine = epistemological anarchy argued theories could not be compared - concept of incommensurabilty argued theories could not be compared - concept of incommensurabilty theories give meaning to facts, not vice versa theories give meaning to facts, not vice versa a form of social constructionism emphasising that the ‘world’ is not singular but plural. Scientific inquiry constructs the objects it inquires into, scientific objects are created by the very practice of investigation itself.

Implications of Feyerabend’s ideas for how we think about psychological research? demystifies logical positivism. If no single correct method for doing science for all problems at all time in all places, then every research project has to find its own method. demystifies logical positivism. If no single correct method for doing science for all problems at all time in all places, then every research project has to find its own method.

Incommensurabilty principle forces us to think about each theory in its own terms. Incommensurabilty principle forces us to think about each theory in its own terms. emphasises the doubts that logical positivism is studying the real world out there. emphasises the doubts that logical positivism is studying the real world out there.

Summary Many different ideas about science Many different ideas about science Psychology uses ‘logical positivism’ Psychology uses ‘logical positivism’ …but may not be always the best choice …but may not be always the best choice Qualitative work needs alternative model of science Qualitative work needs alternative model of science Philosophies of science clarify why experimental, scientific psychology adopts the practices that it does, but also that there are other models which can be adopted. Philosophies of science clarify why experimental, scientific psychology adopts the practices that it does, but also that there are other models which can be adopted.

Questions to ask What model of science is this study using? What model of science is this study using? Could it have used a different one? Could it have used a different one? What model of science is best for psychology? What model of science is best for psychology? Should different areas of psychology have different models of science? Should different areas of psychology have different models of science?