PSYC3004  Mind, Meaning & Discourse

Lecture 5 & 6: Rethinking research methods in psychology
© Dave Hiles, October 2003

(5) Rethinking Research Methods in Psychology

Q Smith, J., Harré, R. & Van Langhenhove, L. (1995b)
In Chap 2, "The theoretical foundations of experimental psychology and its alternatives", Van Langenhove remarks:-

          "Broadly speaking, one can say that at the dawn of the emergence of the social sciences as institutionalized practices themselves, two models of studying people and society were available. [ . ] One available model was the model of the natural sciences, the other the model of hermeneutics. [ . . ] Considering hermeneutics as a model for the social sciences basically means that one treats persons and societies as if they were texts of which the meanings have to be discovered." (p. 13)

          "The natural sciences model is aimed at seeking causality, favours quantitative forms of analysis [ . that generates] universal knowledge, and is related to a positivist philosophy of science. The hermeneutic model is aimed at the search for meaning, favours qualitative analysis that generates knowledge of particulars, and is related to non-positivist philosophies of science. Although it is the natural sciences model of psychology that has become the dominant paradigm, the hermeneutics model has never disappeared totally from the scene, and in the last two decades or so the natural sciences model has become the subject of vigorous attacks." (p.15)

Q Harré, R. (1998) The Singular Self: An introduction to the psychology of personhood. Sage.
               "Underlying most of the arguments for a radical distinction in methods of enquiry in the natural and the human sciences lie two features of human behaviour which have no counterpart in the behaviour of inorganic materials. Human behaviour displays or seems to display intentionality, that is human actions are what they are by virtue of their meaning, point or aim. And human behaviour also displays normativity, that is it is generally subject to appraisal as correct, proper, appropriate or as incorrect, improper, inappropriate. It can be right or wrong." (p.33)

  Q Paradigms of inquiry in research: i.e. Guba & Lincoln (1994) - a PARADIGM is "a set of basic beliefs that deals with ultimates or first principles [ . . that] are not open to proof in any conventional sense."

  Q The notion of research as Disciplined Inquiry
            (cf. Braud & Anderson, 1998; Hiles 1999)
    Q The need to make a practical distinction in research methodology between:-
              " assumptions (paradigms)
              " choices (strategies)
              " procedures (methods)
              " data processing (analysis)

O Psychology and the Issue of Methodology
Much of the discussion of methodology in psychology is quite muddled. This is largely due to the failure to make a distinction between:-

   " Paradigms (basic assumptions adopted towards truth, reality, knowledge, etc)
       " Strategies (choices with respect to how disciplined inquiry is to proceed)
       " Methods (how data is to be collected)
       " Analysis (how the data is to be analysed)

With respect to paradigms there is a basic tension between positivism on the one hand, and social contructionism on the other. Neither of these can be simply defined, they both cover a variety of positions, and there are further positions that attempt to integrate the two.

O The Two Major Traditions of Scientific Research
Amedeo Giorgi (1994) notes three contrasts between a natural and human science approach to research, to which I have added three more:

          a) the laboratory
          b) the causal relationship
          c) measurement
          d) the hypothetico-deductive method
          e) objectivity/replication
          f) narrowing the field.

Giorgi argues that these are wrongly offered as the criteria for "good" research (what I have called the six red herrings of psychological research). A balanced view of research recognizes two major traditions:

A fair conclusion to make from an examination of these two broad traditions is that the qualitative/quantitative distinction is a gross over-simplification. Much more is at stake in this comparison than the type of data being collected. Furthermore, these two traditions should be seen as complementing each other, and not in opposition.

O Discourse Analysis
By far the most common form of qualitative research involves interviewing. As a method of data collection, the processes of structured and semi-structured interviewing are certainly a worthy topic for study (Breakwell, 1995; Mishler, 1986; Robson, 1993; Smith, 1995). But the concern here is the analysis of interview data. There are several approaches to this which come under the general heading of discourse analysis (Burr, 2003; Gill, 1996; Potter, 1996). The particular approach that is examined here is Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. The following notes are meant to provide a general guideline to this type of analysis, and should be read in conjunction with Smith, Jarman, & Osborn (1999). But, first a few general considerations:

O Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
Interviewing usually will involve tape recording, followed by transcription, and then analysis into themes, codes, etc. Suggestions of a suitable notation for transcription are given in the box opposite. Three points are worth mentioning: (i) the process of transcribing is very time consuming indeed - a short interview can take several hours to transcribe properly; (ii) transcription does not completely preserve the rich complexity of the situated occasioned action being studied; and (iii) analysing the transcription inevitably will involve interpretative work by the researcher. Over the page is some material on which to practice IPA analysis.

The choice of approach to discourse analysis (DA) is crucial when considered in the context of the paradigm of research being used (Hiles, 1999). Many approaches to DA are derived from a social constructionist perspective that makes various paradigmatic assumptions that may not be compatible with the perspective to be taken in research in health psychology, counselling, etc.

Smith, Jarman, & Osborn (1999) point out that DA:
       ". . as generally conceived of in contemporary social psychology, is sceptical of the possibility of mapping verbal reports on to underlying cognitions [ . . ] DA regards verbal reports as behaviours in their own right which should be the focus of functional analysis. IPA by contrast is concerned with cognitions, that is, with understanding what the particular respondent thinks or believes about the topic under discussion. Thus, IPA, while recognizing that a person’s thoughts are not transparently available from, for example, interview transcripts, engages in the analytic process in order, hopefully, to be able to say something about that thinking." (p. 219).

[ Top of Page ]

[ home ]