Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206 DOI 10.1007/s12124-015-9300-z R E G U L A R A RT I C L E
The Future of Qualitative Research in Psychology—A Students’ Perspective Thomas Terkildsen & Sofie Petersen
Published online: 22 March 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract The aim of this article is to explore the future of qualitative research as seen from a students’ perspective. This exploration will initially be incited through a discussion of the use of the term ‘qualitative research’, and the risks associated with the use of such an umbrella term. It is discussed that the use of an overarching umbrella term can lead to an overhomogenized understanding of qualitative research, that fails to represent the diversity and variety of methodological and epistemological approaches that exist within this research paradigm. It is also discussed that this overhomogenization reinforces the idea of qualitative research as an anti-doctrine to quantitative research, which is argued to discourage interparadigmatic integration. Lastly, it is considered how these (mis)conceptions of qualitative research influence how psychology students are taught about research methodology and how this education could affect these (mis)conceptions. We advocate that the future for qualitative research in psychology should be ensured through a restructure and a refocus on an educational level. This change should overall be centered around teaching students how to be reflective research practitioners based on an in-depth understanding of the variety of epistemologies within both meta-research-paradigms. Keywords Qualitative research . Epistemology. Interparadigmatic integration . Research flexibility . Education
Introduction The aim of this article is to explore the future of qualitative research as seen from a students’ perspective. This exploration will initially be incited through a discussion of the use of the term ‘qualitative research’, and the risks associated with the use of such an umbrella term. This will be the point of departure for facilitating a discussion of the importance of methodological and paradigmatic integration for the future of qualitative methods within psychology. We, the student authors, wish to highlight the tension between methodolatry T. Terkildsen (*) : S. Petersen Department of Communication and Psychology, University of Aalborg, Kroghstræde 3, 9220 Aalborg Ø, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
203
and methodological flexibility in practice and in education. In doing so, we will advocate the importance of reflective and thoughtful research practice, which emphasizes understanding and consideration of methodological diversity and the distinct epistemological underpinnings thereof. Afterwards, we will consider how these (mis)conceptions of qualitative research influence how students are taught about research methodology and how this education could affect these (mis)conceptions. It will be argued that the future of qualitative research involves interventions on an educational and institutional level.
The Risk of Overhomogenization During the workshop BThe future of qualitative research in psychology^ held at Aalborg University in May, 2014 (Demuth and Terkildsen 2015), Günter Mey and later Svend Brinkmann referred to ‘Qualitative Research’ as being an umbrella term, which serves to unify a diverse and distinct variety of different qualitative frameworks and methods under one brand. These encapsulated qualitative paradigms are generally considered to share certain broad philosophical characteristics, such as subjectivity, openness, co-construction of meaning and ecological interpretation (Holloway and Todres 2003; Madill and Gough 2008). Although utilization of such an umbrella term undoubtedly has its merits and benefits, we would like to point out that there are certain essential disadvantages that shouldn’t be overlooked. First, the risk of using an umbrella term is that it can imply for students, who are novices in the field, but also for researchers, who might not be familiar with the epistemological differences and theoretical backgrounds of the various methodological qualitative approaches, that qualitative research is a much more unified field than it actually is. This misconception of overhomogenization can result in a methodological and epistemological blurring that neglects the distinct differences in the array of underlying methods and the unique research potentials afforded by them. We argue that an umbrella term defined by what we conceive of as overhomogenized characteristics can have an unfortunate impact because, in practice, it facilitates a form of unreflective paradigm eclecticism. This is due to the fact that little attention is paid to the epistemological traditions behind each method, which in turn can result in a mish mash of methodologies that are fundamentally incommensurable (Donmoyer 2001; Holloway and Todres 2003). Second, an overhomogenized understanding of qualitative research, as an umbrella term, underpins and reinforces a default understanding of qualitative research as an antidoctrine to quantitative research (Silverman 2006). Such a differentiating and antagonistic definition could be considered useful, if it incited the general understanding that qualitative research should not be held to the same scientific standards of validity as quantitative method and vice versa. Sadly, this is often not the case. Instead, the antagonistic position of qualitative research is commonly the basis of much of mainstreams psychology’s critique of this research paradigm (Archer 2004). This kind of definition is argued to be problematic since it prima facie stresses a focus on differences rather than similarities, which impedes cross-paradigm integration and complementarity. The possibilities of paradigm integration, both within qualitative research itself and between qualitative and quantitative research, has been regarded as important because we argue that it is central to the notion of ‘research flexibility’. Research flexibility refers to the idea of ‘doing what works’ by pragmatically selecting whatever method best lends itself to answer the specific research
204
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
question at hand (Yardley and Bishop 2008; Holloway and Todres 2003). This contextual and pragmatic approach to research is a central aspect of qualitative research (e.g., Madill and Gough 2008; Flick 2014). This point is also well-represented in the workshop discussion this journal issue is based on (Demuth and Terkildsen 2015). However, one has to be acutely aware of one’s own methodological position on the continuum between flexibility and internal coherence in order to avoid the previously mentioned problem of method and epistemological incommensurability. We will now explore how these mentioned and discussed conceptions and misconceptions are being (re)produced as a result of how psychology students are taught about research methodologies.
The Role of Education in Ensuring the Future of Qualitative Research In this section we would like to discuss future potentials for teaching qualitative research based on our personal experience as students being taught methodology in psychology. Specifically we wish to make suggestions on how to potentially avoid producing and reinforcing the misconceptions that seem to result from the utilization of the overhomogenized umbrella term Bqualitative research^ as discussed above. Overcoming a Dichotomous Understanding of Qualitative and Quantitative Research At the university where we received our method training, the structure of the course on research methodology is segregated into two different sub-courses: One in qualitative methods during the second semester and the second sub-course in quantitative methods is held throughout the fourth semester. This structure of having separate courses on the two main meta-research-paradigms has lead us to perceive of qualitative and quantitative research as being polar opposites and therefore incommensurable. As a potential for the future of teaching methods we therefore suggest that the permeability of the boundaries between these two paradigms will be included in method courses in order to convey to the students an appropriate understanding of the possible interaction and overlap between qualitative and quantitative research. We advocate that such an understanding is essential, because it facilitates research flexibility through inter-paradigmatic integration. Overcoming an Unreflective Use of Methods The courses we attended were each accompanied with a practical research project carried out by the students. Accordingly, the students were required to design a research question based on the given methodology of that semester. The hands-on practice in doing research, offered by these courses, leads to very valuable practical experiences, which are rarely afforded by other universities, where you would solely be exposed to the theoretical aspects. However there are also certain debatably questionable aspects associated with this structure as we see it from our perspective today. These aspects derive from the fact that because of this structure we had to choose our research question based on the methodology of the respective course and not vice versa. Consequently, there was little room for a reflective process of choosing the right methodology to answer our own specific research question based on an underlying understanding of epistemological and ontological positions. One way of overcoming this unreflective use of (both quantitative and qualitative) methods could be that courses in research methodology are taught as one unified field that focuses on: Complementarity, paradigmatic integration as well as flexibility.
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
205
Overcoming the Misconception of Qualitative Research as a Homogeneous Field As pointed out before, novices, e.g. students, are often not aware of the heterogeneity of epistemologies within the field of qualitative research. Likewise, methods might be conceived as ‘tools’ without sufficient consideration of the epistemologies associated with a specific methodological approach. This was also one of the points stressed by Carolin Demuth at the workshop: There is a lot of ignorance about the variety and the different epistemological backgrounds, so qualitative research is often only understood in terms of tools—as methods. What I see happening a lot at conferences is that people say BWe use qualitative methods^ but what they are actually using is some kind of open procedure—not qualitative methods […] What I see happening in mainstream psychology is that more and more people use open procedures but stay within a quantitative paradigm—stay within a quantitative logic. This is one reason why Bqualitative research^ is getting more and more standardized. […] How should we approach these developments—should we accept it or should we counteract? (Demuth and Terkildsen 2015, p. 13) At universities, this misconception is sometimes fostered by teaching one specific approach in qualitative research with no or little reference to other approaches. For the future of teaching qualitative methods we therefore suggest a shift in structure and focus towards teaching epistemology, instead of teaching method for method’s sake or methodolatry. A focus on teaching about distinct epistemologies, as opposed to teaching specific and numerous methods will arguably strengthen the conception that different approaches should be held to different standards. This is because the students will then appreciate the idea that what counts as knowledge differs across epistemologies (Madill and Gough 2008). A method’s validity should therefore be judged based on an evidence hierarchy that is coherent with the underlying epistemology. As the above quotation, shows, qualitative research is often only understood as a cluster of methods. A shift towards teaching about the variety of epistemologies will help diminish this problematic misunderstanding and help students, and therefore future researchers, make well-informed and reflective decisions when it comes to choice of methods. Since teaching students research methodology aims at preparing them to become competent researchers later on, we suggest that teaching this kind of reflective practice will help avoid incoherent methodological eclecticism, similar to what Demuth describes, and instead support a more pragmatic approach that is thoughtfully placed on the continuum between flexibility and coherence. Finally, such a reflective practice might contribute to counteract the increasing standardization of qualitative methods (see also Brinkmann 2014). Increasing amounts of standardization within qualitative research could initially be construed as a positive development, because it reflects a more widespread scientific tolerance of qualitative methods. However, it is a tolerance based on quantitative ideals of standardization and ‘correct’ scientific conduct, which is counterproductive to the future of qualitative research. We deem it counterproductive because it demonstrates the existence and reinforces the discussed mainstream misconception about what qualitative research actually is and how to use it properly. These are the mainstream misconceptions that we are trying to counteract through our suggestions.
206
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
Conclusion In this paper, we aimed to explore the future of qualitative research as seen from a students’ perspective and to sum up, we have advocated that the future of qualitative research in psychology should be ensured through a restructure and a refocus on an educational level. This change should overall be centered around teaching students how to be reflective research practitioners based on an in-depth understanding of the variety of epistemologies within both meta-research-paradigms. In practice, we suggest that methodology courses focus on teaching the students how to pragmatically solve specific problems by reflectively using all the tools at their disposal with respect to their epistemological underpinnings, but regardless of what overhomogenized paradigm they might belong to. In practice, it is also deemed important to emphasize the diversity of methods and epistemologies by designing a course structure that samples many different methodologies and epistemologies. We believe, that is how we best fill the proverbial toolbox with a wide array of different tools that can facilitate the reflective solution to an even wider variety of different and distinct research problems. We propose that intervention on an educational level will create a ripple effect by preventing a future (re)production of current misconceptions of qualitative research as we discussed in this paper. Ultimately, this is based on the notion, that today’s students are tomorrow’s researchers, and so, by ensuring a comprehensive and sound methodological education today we will ultimately influence how research is done and understood in the future.
References Archer, J. (2004). The trouble with ‘doing boy.’ The Psychologist, 17, 132–136. Brinkmann, S. (2014). Perils and potentials in qualitative psychology. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9293-z. Demuth, C., & Terkildsen, T. (2015). The future of qualitative research in psychology—a discussion with Svend Brinkmann, Günter Mey, Luca Tateo and Anete Strand. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-015-9297-3. Donmoyer, R. (2001). Paradigm talk reconsidered. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage. Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The Status of method: flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3, 345–357. Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13, 254–271. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd edn). SAGE Publications. Yardley, L. & Bishop, F. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in psychology. London: Sage. Thomas Terkildsen is a master’s student in neuropsychology at Aalborg University, Denmark. His main field of interest is in affective science and the underlying research methodology allowing for emotional elicitation and assessment. Sofie Petersen is a bachelor student in psychology at Aalborg University, Denmark.
The Future of Qualitative Research in Psychology—A Students’ Perspective Thomas Terkildsen & Sofie Petersen
Published online: 22 March 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract The aim of this article is to explore the future of qualitative research as seen from a students’ perspective. This exploration will initially be incited through a discussion of the use of the term ‘qualitative research’, and the risks associated with the use of such an umbrella term. It is discussed that the use of an overarching umbrella term can lead to an overhomogenized understanding of qualitative research, that fails to represent the diversity and variety of methodological and epistemological approaches that exist within this research paradigm. It is also discussed that this overhomogenization reinforces the idea of qualitative research as an anti-doctrine to quantitative research, which is argued to discourage interparadigmatic integration. Lastly, it is considered how these (mis)conceptions of qualitative research influence how psychology students are taught about research methodology and how this education could affect these (mis)conceptions. We advocate that the future for qualitative research in psychology should be ensured through a restructure and a refocus on an educational level. This change should overall be centered around teaching students how to be reflective research practitioners based on an in-depth understanding of the variety of epistemologies within both meta-research-paradigms. Keywords Qualitative research . Epistemology. Interparadigmatic integration . Research flexibility . Education
Introduction The aim of this article is to explore the future of qualitative research as seen from a students’ perspective. This exploration will initially be incited through a discussion of the use of the term ‘qualitative research’, and the risks associated with the use of such an umbrella term. This will be the point of departure for facilitating a discussion of the importance of methodological and paradigmatic integration for the future of qualitative methods within psychology. We, the student authors, wish to highlight the tension between methodolatry T. Terkildsen (*) : S. Petersen Department of Communication and Psychology, University of Aalborg, Kroghstræde 3, 9220 Aalborg Ø, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
203
and methodological flexibility in practice and in education. In doing so, we will advocate the importance of reflective and thoughtful research practice, which emphasizes understanding and consideration of methodological diversity and the distinct epistemological underpinnings thereof. Afterwards, we will consider how these (mis)conceptions of qualitative research influence how students are taught about research methodology and how this education could affect these (mis)conceptions. It will be argued that the future of qualitative research involves interventions on an educational and institutional level.
The Risk of Overhomogenization During the workshop BThe future of qualitative research in psychology^ held at Aalborg University in May, 2014 (Demuth and Terkildsen 2015), Günter Mey and later Svend Brinkmann referred to ‘Qualitative Research’ as being an umbrella term, which serves to unify a diverse and distinct variety of different qualitative frameworks and methods under one brand. These encapsulated qualitative paradigms are generally considered to share certain broad philosophical characteristics, such as subjectivity, openness, co-construction of meaning and ecological interpretation (Holloway and Todres 2003; Madill and Gough 2008). Although utilization of such an umbrella term undoubtedly has its merits and benefits, we would like to point out that there are certain essential disadvantages that shouldn’t be overlooked. First, the risk of using an umbrella term is that it can imply for students, who are novices in the field, but also for researchers, who might not be familiar with the epistemological differences and theoretical backgrounds of the various methodological qualitative approaches, that qualitative research is a much more unified field than it actually is. This misconception of overhomogenization can result in a methodological and epistemological blurring that neglects the distinct differences in the array of underlying methods and the unique research potentials afforded by them. We argue that an umbrella term defined by what we conceive of as overhomogenized characteristics can have an unfortunate impact because, in practice, it facilitates a form of unreflective paradigm eclecticism. This is due to the fact that little attention is paid to the epistemological traditions behind each method, which in turn can result in a mish mash of methodologies that are fundamentally incommensurable (Donmoyer 2001; Holloway and Todres 2003). Second, an overhomogenized understanding of qualitative research, as an umbrella term, underpins and reinforces a default understanding of qualitative research as an antidoctrine to quantitative research (Silverman 2006). Such a differentiating and antagonistic definition could be considered useful, if it incited the general understanding that qualitative research should not be held to the same scientific standards of validity as quantitative method and vice versa. Sadly, this is often not the case. Instead, the antagonistic position of qualitative research is commonly the basis of much of mainstreams psychology’s critique of this research paradigm (Archer 2004). This kind of definition is argued to be problematic since it prima facie stresses a focus on differences rather than similarities, which impedes cross-paradigm integration and complementarity. The possibilities of paradigm integration, both within qualitative research itself and between qualitative and quantitative research, has been regarded as important because we argue that it is central to the notion of ‘research flexibility’. Research flexibility refers to the idea of ‘doing what works’ by pragmatically selecting whatever method best lends itself to answer the specific research
204
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
question at hand (Yardley and Bishop 2008; Holloway and Todres 2003). This contextual and pragmatic approach to research is a central aspect of qualitative research (e.g., Madill and Gough 2008; Flick 2014). This point is also well-represented in the workshop discussion this journal issue is based on (Demuth and Terkildsen 2015). However, one has to be acutely aware of one’s own methodological position on the continuum between flexibility and internal coherence in order to avoid the previously mentioned problem of method and epistemological incommensurability. We will now explore how these mentioned and discussed conceptions and misconceptions are being (re)produced as a result of how psychology students are taught about research methodologies.
The Role of Education in Ensuring the Future of Qualitative Research In this section we would like to discuss future potentials for teaching qualitative research based on our personal experience as students being taught methodology in psychology. Specifically we wish to make suggestions on how to potentially avoid producing and reinforcing the misconceptions that seem to result from the utilization of the overhomogenized umbrella term Bqualitative research^ as discussed above. Overcoming a Dichotomous Understanding of Qualitative and Quantitative Research At the university where we received our method training, the structure of the course on research methodology is segregated into two different sub-courses: One in qualitative methods during the second semester and the second sub-course in quantitative methods is held throughout the fourth semester. This structure of having separate courses on the two main meta-research-paradigms has lead us to perceive of qualitative and quantitative research as being polar opposites and therefore incommensurable. As a potential for the future of teaching methods we therefore suggest that the permeability of the boundaries between these two paradigms will be included in method courses in order to convey to the students an appropriate understanding of the possible interaction and overlap between qualitative and quantitative research. We advocate that such an understanding is essential, because it facilitates research flexibility through inter-paradigmatic integration. Overcoming an Unreflective Use of Methods The courses we attended were each accompanied with a practical research project carried out by the students. Accordingly, the students were required to design a research question based on the given methodology of that semester. The hands-on practice in doing research, offered by these courses, leads to very valuable practical experiences, which are rarely afforded by other universities, where you would solely be exposed to the theoretical aspects. However there are also certain debatably questionable aspects associated with this structure as we see it from our perspective today. These aspects derive from the fact that because of this structure we had to choose our research question based on the methodology of the respective course and not vice versa. Consequently, there was little room for a reflective process of choosing the right methodology to answer our own specific research question based on an underlying understanding of epistemological and ontological positions. One way of overcoming this unreflective use of (both quantitative and qualitative) methods could be that courses in research methodology are taught as one unified field that focuses on: Complementarity, paradigmatic integration as well as flexibility.
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
205
Overcoming the Misconception of Qualitative Research as a Homogeneous Field As pointed out before, novices, e.g. students, are often not aware of the heterogeneity of epistemologies within the field of qualitative research. Likewise, methods might be conceived as ‘tools’ without sufficient consideration of the epistemologies associated with a specific methodological approach. This was also one of the points stressed by Carolin Demuth at the workshop: There is a lot of ignorance about the variety and the different epistemological backgrounds, so qualitative research is often only understood in terms of tools—as methods. What I see happening a lot at conferences is that people say BWe use qualitative methods^ but what they are actually using is some kind of open procedure—not qualitative methods […] What I see happening in mainstream psychology is that more and more people use open procedures but stay within a quantitative paradigm—stay within a quantitative logic. This is one reason why Bqualitative research^ is getting more and more standardized. […] How should we approach these developments—should we accept it or should we counteract? (Demuth and Terkildsen 2015, p. 13) At universities, this misconception is sometimes fostered by teaching one specific approach in qualitative research with no or little reference to other approaches. For the future of teaching qualitative methods we therefore suggest a shift in structure and focus towards teaching epistemology, instead of teaching method for method’s sake or methodolatry. A focus on teaching about distinct epistemologies, as opposed to teaching specific and numerous methods will arguably strengthen the conception that different approaches should be held to different standards. This is because the students will then appreciate the idea that what counts as knowledge differs across epistemologies (Madill and Gough 2008). A method’s validity should therefore be judged based on an evidence hierarchy that is coherent with the underlying epistemology. As the above quotation, shows, qualitative research is often only understood as a cluster of methods. A shift towards teaching about the variety of epistemologies will help diminish this problematic misunderstanding and help students, and therefore future researchers, make well-informed and reflective decisions when it comes to choice of methods. Since teaching students research methodology aims at preparing them to become competent researchers later on, we suggest that teaching this kind of reflective practice will help avoid incoherent methodological eclecticism, similar to what Demuth describes, and instead support a more pragmatic approach that is thoughtfully placed on the continuum between flexibility and coherence. Finally, such a reflective practice might contribute to counteract the increasing standardization of qualitative methods (see also Brinkmann 2014). Increasing amounts of standardization within qualitative research could initially be construed as a positive development, because it reflects a more widespread scientific tolerance of qualitative methods. However, it is a tolerance based on quantitative ideals of standardization and ‘correct’ scientific conduct, which is counterproductive to the future of qualitative research. We deem it counterproductive because it demonstrates the existence and reinforces the discussed mainstream misconception about what qualitative research actually is and how to use it properly. These are the mainstream misconceptions that we are trying to counteract through our suggestions.
206
Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:202–206
Conclusion In this paper, we aimed to explore the future of qualitative research as seen from a students’ perspective and to sum up, we have advocated that the future of qualitative research in psychology should be ensured through a restructure and a refocus on an educational level. This change should overall be centered around teaching students how to be reflective research practitioners based on an in-depth understanding of the variety of epistemologies within both meta-research-paradigms. In practice, we suggest that methodology courses focus on teaching the students how to pragmatically solve specific problems by reflectively using all the tools at their disposal with respect to their epistemological underpinnings, but regardless of what overhomogenized paradigm they might belong to. In practice, it is also deemed important to emphasize the diversity of methods and epistemologies by designing a course structure that samples many different methodologies and epistemologies. We believe, that is how we best fill the proverbial toolbox with a wide array of different tools that can facilitate the reflective solution to an even wider variety of different and distinct research problems. We propose that intervention on an educational level will create a ripple effect by preventing a future (re)production of current misconceptions of qualitative research as we discussed in this paper. Ultimately, this is based on the notion, that today’s students are tomorrow’s researchers, and so, by ensuring a comprehensive and sound methodological education today we will ultimately influence how research is done and understood in the future.
References Archer, J. (2004). The trouble with ‘doing boy.’ The Psychologist, 17, 132–136. Brinkmann, S. (2014). Perils and potentials in qualitative psychology. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9293-z. Demuth, C., & Terkildsen, T. (2015). The future of qualitative research in psychology—a discussion with Svend Brinkmann, Günter Mey, Luca Tateo and Anete Strand. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-015-9297-3. Donmoyer, R. (2001). Paradigm talk reconsidered. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage. Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The Status of method: flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3, 345–357. Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13, 254–271. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd edn). SAGE Publications. Yardley, L. & Bishop, F. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in psychology. London: Sage. Thomas Terkildsen is a master’s student in neuropsychology at Aalborg University, Denmark. His main field of interest is in affective science and the underlying research methodology allowing for emotional elicitation and assessment. Sofie Petersen is a bachelor student in psychology at Aalborg University, Denmark.
