Methodological Challenges in Psychology

1. Methodological Challenges in Psychology Dr Karen Henwood, School of Medicine, Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Presentation to NCRM Centre meeting, 20th June, 2005

2. Opening comment : the conditions of contemporary social science “Public support for social research increasingly depends on its ability to deliver scientifically valid and reliable studies to guide policy and practice. The theoretical foundations of social science, however, are in a state. Evidence generated by both qualitative and quantitative methods is more and more seen to be conflicting, open to many interpretations, and lacking in scientific objectivity” (Quotation from supporting documentation for an ESRC seminar series ‘Methods in Dialogue’, organised by the Centre for Narrative Research and partners, University of East London, May, 2005)

3. Plan & purpose of talk • Psychology as a social science • Contemporary issues; methodological diversity, interpretive authority & judging quality/rigour • Discussion tasks: – understanding & discussion of psychological methodology – policy-academic discussions about research quality – collaboration as a methodological issue

4. The position of psychology as a social science discipline – a historical note • Traditionally highly experimental • High level of experimental design and statistical analysis skills • Latterly widening acceptance of qualitative inquiry to study questions about: - Psychological processes, intentional activities, social representations & everyday interaction, the dynamics of thought and talk, cultural discourses & the construction of experiences and meanings - Emic/insider/lay/patients’ perspectives and knowledges - The psycho-social (semiotics, signification & the imaginary; focus on (inter) subjectivity)

5. Quality-quantity issues and the science question in psychology • From causes & behaviours to intentional acts and meaningful actions; the science of social practices; alternative ways of consulting reality (Harré and Secord, 1972; van Langenhove, 1995; Camic, 2004) • Theory led or data driven? Grounded theory and qualitative research design (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992, 2003, 2004) • Questioning the dominance of method (Hollway, 1989); displacing method by practice, methodological scepticism and creativity (Squire, 2000)

6. Contemporary Challenges/Issues • Accommodating ontological & epistemological diversity • Finding ways of mixing qualitative & quantitative methods (Todd et al, 2004) • Dominant metaphors (e.g. the black box) • Negotiating interpretive authority • Checklists/criteria for research rigour/quality

7. Methodological diversity : how it looks currently in qualitative psychology • Grounded theory • Phenomenology • Case Studies • Discursive psychology • Foucauldian Discourse Analysis • Memory Work (From Willig, C., 2001, Introducing Qualitative Psychology : Adventures in Theory and Method, Open University Press)

8. Reasons for/ways of mixing methods – Todd et al, 2004 • Triangulation • As a prelude or pilot • To explore different levels of a phenomenon • To repopulate psychology • Fostering better communication across and within disciplines • Improved links between academics, practitioners and consumers of psychology • Improvements in breadth and depth of results, & relevance of theory

9. Qual and quant approaches : Opening the “Black Box” What (type)? How? Reasons? Input variables Output variables Qualitative study of contexts, interactions, processes Quantitative measurement of variables and casual links

10. Negotiating interpretive authority Means asking : • who research is for, whose voice it represents • what interpretive rights researchers have over their data and each other • What is the promise of collaborative methodologies, and what special problems arise when involving informants in interrogating & even co-constructing the research story (from Methods In Dialogue, 2005) • Plus need for studies of different strategies for making meaning and claiming interpretive authority (see e.g. Emerson & Frosh, in press)

11. Quality criteria/checklists • NatCen’s framework approach - Contributory in advancing wider knowledge - Defensible in design: research strategy can address the questions - Rigorous in conduct: systematic and transparent collection, analysis and interpretation of data - Credible in claim through well founded and plausible arguments about the significance of the evidence

12. Views of quality checklists/criteria • Objection to their regulatory role • Can keep researchers honest • Aids communication e.g. between research producers and users (The National Centre’s Quality Framework) • Evaluation must be appropriate for epistemological assumptions of methodology and method (Taylor, 2001) • Questions not criteria (see e.g. BSA guidelines, Blaxter et al)

13. Concluding remarks • Findings from a consultation with UK social scientists about qualitative research resources– what do they need to do their research well? • more time for data analysis • technological support, especially for alternative means of dissemination • innovative ways of sharing data and promoting collaboration • ways of increasing the impact and relevance of qual studies (e.g. funding for longitudinal) • sharing the conceptual vocabularies associated with qualitative methodologies and methods