Research Methods and Statistics

1. Introduction to qualitative research and data analysis techniques Research Methods and Statistics

2. Intended learning outcomes • At the end of this lecture and with additional reading you will be able to: • understand the difference between realism and relativism • describe different data collecting methods in qualitative research • describe the differences between IPA, grounded theory and discourse analysis

3. Qualitative methods - a historical perspective • Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge • In research methods we need to know what our objectives are and what we may find out • We must be able to identify our goals and justify our choice • we need to adopt an epistemological approach

4. Qualitative research • Shared concerns • the importance of how people make sense of the world and how they experience events; meanings rather than cause-effects relationships • Epistemological differences • how we define the status of the text will depend on our theoretical framework

5. Ongoing epistemological debate in psychology: Realism Vs Relativism • Realism: there is a direct link between the world and our perception and understanding of it • Critical realism: we can separate the world from our knowledge of it e.g., embodied experience; but need to accept that psychological ‘facts’ are socially constructed • Relativism: psychological ideas/concepts useful constructions; & multiple versions of truth & reality • Social constructionism: role of “discourse” (historically, culturally, socially contextual) in constituting ‘objects’, subjective experience, and scientific knowledge • Extreme relativism: rejection of concepts such as ‘truth’

6. Epistemological positions Realism Relativist

7. Qualitative research • Small Q's and big Q’s • little Q's; methods used to incorporated non numerical data into hypo-deductive research methods (content analysis, repertory grid) • big Q’s; open ended induced research methodologies

8. Qualitative research: defining features • Common investigative goals in qualitative research: • looking to understand experience, not cause and effect • interested in offering interpretations of text/narratives , not test a prediction about variables • looking for participant-defined meanings, not researcher-imposed ones • acknowledging ‘humanmessiness’ and complexity • valuing contextual influences on the data, rather than tying to reduce it

9. Ethical considerations • Informed consent • No deception • Right to withdraw • Debriefing • Confidentiality

10. Semi structured interviews • The most widely used form of data collecting in qualitative research • A variety of methods can be used to analyse interview transcripts • non directive • research question drives the interview • interviewer must be aware of their impact on the interview • the interviewer must be aware of the linguistic variability

11. The interview agenda • Descriptive • general accounts of what happened • Structural • how the interviewee organises their knowledge • Contrast • makes comparisons between events and experiences • Evaluative • interviewee’s feelings towards someone/thing

12. Focus groups • The focus group is a group interview that uses interactions amongst participants as a source of data • The researcher acts as a moderator and steers the discussion • Statements are challenged, extended, developed, undermined or qualified generating rich data

13. Focus groups cont’d • Focus groups can be • homogenous • heterogeneous • pre-existing • concerned or native participants

14. Diaries methods • Participants make a commitment to maintain a record of their experiences, activities, and feelings over a period of time • There are not provided with a set of questions and can be more or less unstructured • The researcher must provide participants with guidance on: • how frequent they are meant to make entries • which medium of reporting • what to write about • the time period covered

15. Grounded theory • Grounded theory is designed to facilitate the process of discovery through theory generation • Grounded theory was created by Glaser and Strauss (1967) • they wanted a method which could translate data to theory ‘ that would be grounded in the data’ rather than analytical constructs, categories or variables from pre-existing theories

16. Basic principles of grounded theory • Building blocks • Categories • Coding • Constant comparative analysis • Negative case analysis • Theoretical sensitivity • Theoretical sampling • Theoretical saturation • Memo writing

17. Limitations of grounded theory • The problem of induction • grounded theory is meant to give rise to new theories, in that observations give rise to new ideas • however this ignores the role of the researcher suggesting that the data speaks for itself • therefore grounded theory does not address reflectivity

18. Limitations of grounded theory II • Suitability for psychological research • grounded theory was developed to study social process from the ‘bottom up’ • therefore relating it to understanding experience it produces maps and concepts used by the respondent to make sense of their experience and this in itself does not constitute a theory • the nature of experience is more suitably addressed using phenomenological research methods

19. Interpretative phenomenological analysis • IPA is an approach that is informed by the principles of phenomenology (Jonathan Smith, 1997) • phenomenology is concerned with the way individuals again knowledge form the world around them

20. Basic principles in phenomenology • Phenomenology methods requires three steps • epoche: the suspension of presuppositions, assumptions and judgments • phenomenological reduction: what makes the experience what it is (this includes physical and experiential features) • imaginative variation: how is the experience made possible (an examination of its structure in relation to time, space, social relationships)

21. Limitations to IPA • The role of language • IPA uses language in the forms of text to communicate experience. However it could be argued that language constructs rather than describes experience. The same event may described in many ways, therefore language cannot simply give expression to experience • Suitability of accounts • phenomenology relies on participants descriptions of accounts, but how good are the participants at communicating their experiences to the researcher

22. Limitations to IPA II • Explanation versus description • although IPA allows rich text of an individuals perception of the world it does not further our understanding of why such experiences take place and why individuals experience may be different. ‘it describes and documents the lived experience of participants but it does not attempt to explain it’

23. Limitations to IPA III • Is IPA genuinely phenomenological • it could be argued that genuinely phenomenological research should not study peoples cognition, instead it should aim to understand lived experience

24. Discourse analysis - the turn to language • Language is seen to construct versions of social reality and achieve social objectives

25. The relationship between language and representation • That talk is a route to cognition • That cognition's are based on perception • That an objective perception of reality is theoretically possible • That there are consensual objects of thoughts • That there are cognitive structures which are relatively enduing

26. Discursive and foucauldian discourse analysis • Discursive psychology asks how participants use language in order to negotiate and manage social interactions • Foucauldian discourse analysis seeks to describe and critique discursive worlds people inhabit and explore their implications for subjectivity and experience

27. Limitation to discursive analysis • Discursive psychology does not address questions about subjectivity • It is unable to account for why different groups pursue particular discursive objectives (i.e. not being able to say sorry or I love you, when strategically it would be appropriate to do so) • Discursive psychology tends to discard the wider social and material context in which the conversation takes place

28. Limitations of foucauldian discourse • Can subjectivity be theorised on the basis of discourse alone • it can be argued that discursive techniques do not account for the emotional investment individuals make • What is the relationship between discourse and material reality • if discourse constructs reality can reality constrain discourse

29. Key differences between foucauldian and discursive analysis • Research question • discursive: how do participants use language to manage stake in social interaction • foucauldian: what characterises the discursive worlds people inhabit and what are the implications for possible ways of being

30. Key differences between foucauldian and discursive analysis II • Agency • discursive: the speaker as an active agent who uses discursive strategies to manage stake in social interactions • foucaldian: the power of discourse to construct objects, including the human subject itself

31. Key differences between foucauldian and discursive analysis III • Experience • discursive: questions the value of the category ‘experiences’ itself, instead it conceptualises it as a discursive move whereby speakers use it to justify their claims • foucauldian: does not attempt to theorise ‘experience’, discursive constructions are implicated in the ways in which we experience ourselves