Qualitative Methods in Psychological Studies - Essay Example

?Qualitative methods in psychological studies Insert of Introduction Research is the back born of scientific development and knowledge generation in the society. It is research which leads to the discovery of new things, procedures, effects and results as well as the factors responsible for giving changes experienced in different pars of the world. Creswell & Clark, (2007) note hat it is research which drives the society. Various methods have been used by various people to conduct research depending on the area/ field of specialization that the persons conducting these researches are orientated to. In hard or earth sciences such as biological sciences, chemistry, statistics, among other physical sciences, quantitative methods of research are usually the most preferred methods of data collection and analysis while quantitative research is mainly used in the social sciences such as sociology, law, anthropology, psychology among other related disciplines. Neuman, (2000) asserts that the use of qualitative techniques have been increasingly used by various people, mostly social scientists generate qualitative data and conduct research analysis in various fields of study such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, among others. As opposed to quantitative methods, qualitative methods are based on the analysis of personal reactions and views dictated by certain human behaviors. Qualitative research, since it leaned to the drawing of conclusions based on the abstract behaviors of human beings in the society is the most commonly used methods in conducting researches on the human and personal behaviors over time and space. Quantitative research on the other hand has been used widely in fields like medical applications and testing for instance in estimating the effectiveness of a drug across a given population. In qualitative research, samples are drawn from the target population and tested across the domain to come up with sound results on the outcomes of the reactions of the population under study. This paper will critically analyze the effectiveness of using qualitative research in psychological studies as opposed to the use of quantitative methods. The two methods will be compared alongside one another and a general stand point derived at the end of the study. This will be carried out by using elaborate and sound examples drawn from an in- depth analysis of the available secondary resources in order to come up with a stronger stand point of argument. Crossley. M. L., (2000) observes that the applications of the use of qualitative methods in conducting researches in natural sciences have been increasing over time and space. Besides, Crossley. M. L., (2000) assert that qualitative methods are the most ancient research methods known since the inception of learning. It is for this reason that qualitative methods have gained world wide applications in various fields of study cutting across both the physical as well as the human sciences. According to Denzin & Lincoln, (2008), the use of qualitative research is based on the assumption that researchers are rational beings whose main aim is to generate results which are independent and let out fact to speak for themselves, this involves the detachment of one's self from the research in order to avoid personal biases in generating the results. The dominant positivists approach to doing research from a psychological perspective treats researchers as a political, emotionally distanced and unbiased beings who apply the techniques of the natural sciences to the study of human behavior through the use of scientific methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The sole requirements for the effective application of qualitative research methods in conducting researches requires that the researcher detaches himself or herself from the research he or she is conducting and makes observations from a research angle of suspension. This involves standing aside on a raised platform and observing the behavior of various elements being studied. It is compared with one standing on a hilly ground and observing the behavior of the people below the valley bottom without letting them know that someone is making an observation of their movements and operation. This will ensure that the behavior of the persons/ objects under study is not altered leading to the generation of manipulating results hence biased conclusions. The use of qualitative methods in conducting academic researches in social sciences has been associated with several advantages and disadvantages over time as more people apply the same methodologies in different situations. As a result of this, various strengths and weaknesses have been realized which makes the application of these methods viable in some areas and not in others and at times, the methods are supplemented with quantitative methods in order to come up with more encompassing results. Argues that perhaps the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is an over- simplification of the main ideas held in the whole drama, while both methods facilitates the generation if adequate and sound results necessary for making accurate conclusions, social scientists have held high the use of qualitative methods making it a reserve of the human/ social sciences. However, quantitative methods have been widely used in other human sciences such as economics and market researches further introducing the aspects of quantitative research in social sciences. The problem comes when this approach is viewed as the superior choice in every kind of psychological research endeavor. So many arguments are that quantitative approach has ne value in psychological research: far from it. The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research methods has been likened to the tension between the depth and breadth of the analysis respectively (Krueger & Casey, 2000). With regard to this, Neuman, (2000) adds that quantitative research has the capacity to provide a broad analysis of phenomena whilst qualitative methods can focus on the operations of social processes at greater depths. This is what brings the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods besides which, the outcome is significantly the same. In some occasions, qualitative approaches have been widely used in providing in- depth analysis on the results generated through other quantitative methods. This involves the explanation of the nature of graphs, description of trends in the change of various aspects as well as in providing an elaborate explanation of statistical data generated by other methods. Creswell & Clark, (2007) in support for the use of qualitative research methods in social sciences maintains that it is because of the differences in the data, how data is collected and analyzed, and what the data and analyses are able to tell us about our subjects of study, the knowledge gained through qualitative investigations is more informative, richer and offers enhanced understandings compared to that which can be obtained via quantitative research. According to Gergen, (2001) arguments above, qualitative methods employ more robust methods of data collection, analysis and even making this data easier to interpret as compared to quantitative methods. It is for this reason that Gergen, (2001) argues in support of the use of qualitative methods in social science research such in social psychology. Besides, Gergen, (2001) asserts that qualitative research methods provide explicit answers to certain pertinent questions common in psychological researches such as what, how, when, and where of a thing; that is it is the essence and ambience. It therefore ensures the provision and description of meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, symbols, as well as the description of things, places and occurrences over time and space. These characteristics can as well be observed across the divide and compared among different races, regions, sexes and gender orientations. These aspects are lacking in quantitative methods yet are very suitable in describing psychological orientations of the people being studied. We cannot however accord total responsibility and wholesome soundness in the use of qualitative researchers in conducting psychological researches as some aspects need quantification which may not be availed through the use of qualitative methods. It is for this reason that qualitative research methods will always call for the support from other research methods in order to address all aspects inn the human society. For instance, researches conducted on population distributions and interrelationships will require that one describes the effects of various patterns by quantifying the various properties of the population being studied. This will entail the use of quantitative methods such as statistical methods to come up with a systematic description of the population. The use of statistics here saves on time, money as well as the human resource. Based on this argument, Henwood, (2004) concludes that even in human sciences such as psychological researches, qualitative methods will often call for the supplement of certain quantitative methods to accomplish the goals of the research. The two methodologies supplement each others needs just as twin view of the eyes, one supplementing the ability of the other and cutting across the field of view of the other. In support for the use of quantitative methods in conjunction with qualitative ones, Finlay, (2003) asserts that while quantitative methods are typically considered to be the more “scientific” approach to doing social science research, the focus is on using specific definitions and carefully operationalizing what particular concepts and variables mean. Qualitative research methods on the other hand provide more emphasis on interpretation and providing consumers with complete views, looking at contexts, environmental immersions and a depth of understanding of concepts (Esin, 2011). The use of quantitative methods is subject to personal biases and prevalence. These are very crucial sources of errors in social researches which may lead to various distortions in the attainment of robust results to adequately address various issues relating to human characteristics. Despite all these benefits gained from the use of quantitative research methods, some social scientists such as Denzin & Lincoln, (2008) maintains that this does not mean that qualitative research techniques should be applicable in all sectors of social research. Crossley. M. L., (2000) believes that the process of deducing connections between phenomena is a common occurrence in all psychological work and is dependent on human intuition as opposed to the general facts generated through scientific researches. These will involve the formulation of theories on human behavior which are very difficult to predict since people tend to behave differently in different contexts and depending on different conditions they are facing at any given moment. Due to the inconsistencies in the prediction of human behavior, the use of qualitative research processes is liable to several errors as opposed to the case of quantitative methods where the data generated has enough proof to speak out for itself and gives sound results which can stand out as clear proofs. To add to this, Ellsberg & Heise, (2005) suggests that; …, integrating qualitative with quantitative methods in psychology also provides researchers with a tool for the potential “democratization of the research process (Ellsberg & Heise, 2005). She also clarifies that among clinical psychologists working in the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS), the research process can be opened to include the views of service users with an increasing emphasis on exploring people’s personal and cultural understandings and stocks of knowledge (Henwood, 2004). This infers the need to quantify the population to be studied by using the relevant statistical methods which can then be interpreted qualitatively for more comprehensive and easy to understand results. Other scholars have as well argued that the use of qualitative research methods in social sciences dealing with the variations in human behavior and mannerisms are very inadequate especially where experimentations are required. Psychological analysis and investigations are based on some epistemological assumptions such as in predicting human behaviors. Such assumptions should be generated after carrying out some experimentation on the variations in such behaviors in different persons in order to come up with a more encompassing result that can be used for generalization. Experimentations are however not possible to be conducted using qualitative approaches hence the need to revisit the results and compare them across the population for consistency purposes in decision making. This process is quite tiresome, needs a lot of man labor as research assistants, as well as a lot of funds to be used in conducting the research process as well as the follow up activities. This is what (Gergen, 2001) implies when he argues that; … A researcher and research cannot be value-free, and that a general ‘Objectivist’ notion that science can be value-free is impossible, given that we are all rooted in a social world that is socially constructed. Psychology (at least in the West) has general values (even if these are often left implicit) of communicating broadening knowledge and understanding about people, with a commitment to both freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression (Esin, 2011). Human freedom in terms of behavioral mechanisms tends to differ with time and space making the deductions very difficult. Moreover, investigations on human behaviors require the observance of a wide range of possibilities measured on a single platform. This means that the population base to be used for conducting the research process should be as wide as possible for the findings to be more authentic and reliable. According to Finlay, (2003) increasing the sample size often result in the acquisition of more accurate data. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the findings generated. Human populations in the world or in any given area are usually very large and vary greatly in characteristics and forms, increasing the sample size therefore is the best way to come up with more elaborate and sound judgments on the characteristic behavior registered in any given population. Regarding this, Denzin & Lincoln, (2008) note that in qualitative research as opposed to quantitative researches, the samples are often very small and unrepresentative in most occasions. This leads the researcher to making sufficient generalizations which may at times distort the entire findings; Samples are small and not necessarily representative of the broader population, so it is difficult to know how far we can generalize the results ; (Crossley. M. L., 2000). Many social scientists using qualitative research methods often opt for generalizations using small samples due to a number of reasons. The most common reason for the use of small sample sizes in social researches is the inadequacy of funding/ resources to be used in conducting the full research. It therefore becomes very difficult for the whole population to be studied effectively. However, some researchers such as Creswell & Clark, (2007) have also argued that generalizations may be represented in qualitative researches especially if the samples are more representative. To them, generalization is not a common issue that may result into making an error as long as the sample size is well determined. Even though rigor in qualitative research is determined by the robustness of the findings generated in a research activity, some scholars have argued that the use of pure qualitative research methods in conducting a scientific research lacks rigor required for any scientific research. To illustrate this, in order to determine how best a given population gains access to medication, it is necessary to conduct a cross- sectional survey first to find out the percentage of people who have little or less access to Medicare. This information is very essential to the researcher before conducting the actual qualitative research process. However, there are some questions to the research that the survey cannot answer such as the people’s experiences on the cost of medication in the area as well as identifying and accessing other barriers which may be affecting adequate access to health care. These can be analyzed through qualitative methods such as the use of interviews or focused groups. Even though qualitative methods are able to realize adequate results when used alone, they need supplementary results generated by quantitative methods to come up with initial findings which can then be synthesized through qualitative methods. Krueger & Casey, (2000) recognizes that, in order to avoid losing potential value of some data, it may be preferable to adopt ‘mixed methods’. This is often of value in, for example, health research as shown above, where health evidence is needed from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. This helps bring together diverse types of evidence needed to inform healthcare delivery and practice. However, as Ellsberg & Heise, (2005) argues the findings in qualitative researches can be made even more robust findings on supplementary methods such as triangulation are used. Triangulation according to Neuman, (2000) involves checking for the most common or the most insidious biases that can steal into the process of drawing conclusions. This may include among others the accuracy in representation ensured by choosing an appropriate sample size, representative generalization of the findings to the entire population under study. This will require that the researcher detaches himself or herself from the research project and letting the findings to justify their stands. These biases can then be removed and the results cleared of these anomalies. The resultant findings, cleaned from the targeted biases will be sounder. Conclusion In conclusion, it is very important to note here that qualitative research methods such as interviews, focused group discussions, the use of questionnaires and other methodologies have increasingly been used by various scientists and researchers over decades to conduct researches in various fields of social sciences. Despite the many flaws associated with the use of qualitative methods in isolation of quantitative methods, the methods have been very significant in conducting social science research especially where experimentations are not possible. However, the combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods in conducting researches generates more elaborate findings as compared to when purely quantitative or qualitative methods are used thus making the findings more robust and all encompassing. Reference Creswell, J. W., & Clark, P. V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Crossley. M. L. (2000). Introducing Narrative Psychology: Self, trauma and the construction of meaning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research. London: Sage. Ellsberg, M., & Heise, L. (2005). Researching violence against women: a practical guide for researchers and activiststs. WHO/PATH. Esin, C. (2011). Narrative analysis approaches. (N. Frost, Ed.) Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches . Finlay, L. (2003). The reflexive journey; mapping multiple routes. (L. F. Gough, Ed.) Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences . Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social Construction in Context. London: Sage Publications. Henwood, K. (2004). Reinventing validity: reflections on principles and practices from beyond the quality-quantity divide. (Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown, & D. D. Clarke, Eds.) Mixing methods in psychology: the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice . Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: a Practical Guide for Applied Research (3rd ed.). Sage. Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods – Qualitative and quantitative approaches, (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon Pub. Read More