Research Methods and Statistics

Introduction to qualitative research and data analysis techniques

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

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

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

Ongoing epistemological debate in psychology: Realism Vs Relativism

Realism: there is a direct link between the world Realism: there is a direct link between the world and our perception and understanding of itand our perception and understanding of it

Critical realismCritical 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

RelativismRelativism: psychological ideas/concepts useful constructions; & multiple versions of truth & reality

Social constructionism: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’

Epistemological positions

Realism Relativist

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

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 ‘human messiness’ and complexity – valuing contextual influences on the data, rather

than tying to reduce it

Ethical considerations

Informed consent No deception Right to withdraw Debriefing Confidentiality

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

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

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

Focus groups cont’d

Focus groups can be– homogenous– heterogeneous– pre-existing– concerned or native participants

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

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

Basic principles of grounded theory

Building blocks Categories Coding Constant comparative analysis Negative case analysis Theoretical sensitivity Theoretical sampling Theoretical saturation Memo writing

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

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

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

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)

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

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’

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

Discourse analysis - the turn to language

Language is seen to construct versions of social reality and achieve social objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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